From: David Segall on
Jim Janney <jjanney(a)shell.xmission.com> wrote:

>I started programming with punch cards, first in Fortran and then
>Algol W -- you'd write everything out by hand and then stand in line
>for one of the keypunches. It did make you check everything over and
>over and over again. Still, I wouldn't recommend doing that now.

You mean you haven't used a dibber to alter a paper tape binary? How
did you avoid using the switches on the front panel to alter the
program in core memory?

I don't see how anybody can seriously join this style of competition
if they have watched the "Four Yorkshire Men"
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo>.
From: Jim Janney on
David Segall <david(a)address.invalid> writes:

> Jim Janney <jjanney(a)shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>I started programming with punch cards, first in Fortran and then
>>Algol W -- you'd write everything out by hand and then stand in line
>>for one of the keypunches. It did make you check everything over and
>>over and over again. Still, I wouldn't recommend doing that now.
>
> You mean you haven't used a dibber to alter a paper tape binary? How
> did you avoid using the switches on the front panel to alter the
> program in core memory?
>
> I don't see how anybody can seriously join this style of competition
> if they have watched the "Four Yorkshire Men"
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo>.

Sorry, no paper tapes. In high school the computer was on a different
campus, and only one student was allowed to operate the card reader.
If he didn't like you he'd "forget" to run your jobs. In college you
could walk right up and use the card reader, but the computer was
behind a glass wall: no way were they allowing mere freshmen anywhere
near it.

With Eclipse I can hit a breakpoint, change a line, recompile, and
continue running in the same stack frame. I like this better.

--
Jim Janney
From: BGB / cr88192 on

"Arved Sandstrom" <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%O4Cn.2984$Z6.2774(a)edtnps82...
> Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> writes:
>>> I agree with all of the above - now. Prior to 2000 I used text editors
>>
>> �[T]he only 3 editors we know to be used by great
>> hackers are TextMate, vim and emacs. (...)
>>
>> We haven't met a single great hacker that relied on an IDE,
>> although we hear they exist.�
>>
>> http://giraffesoft.ca/blog/2009/03/10/4-core-competencies-of-great-hackers.html
> [ SNIP ]
>
> After reading what that guy wrote in that link, I must conclude that he's
> an ignorant idiot. It is not humanly possible - and common sense should
> have informed that fool of this fact - to be faster without an IDE than
> with one. And if some individual has an environment built up around vim or
> emacs or some other programming text editor, with all sorts of helper
> scripts and macros and what have you, with which they are also very
> productive...guess what? That is also an IDE.
>

I think a lot of this would depend on various factors:
the speed and skills of the developers involved;
the particular languages and coding practices in use;
....

for example, a developer who can (on a good day) churn out several kloc/day
with Notepad and with a relatively low error rate, will naturally still be
much faster than someone who fudges away getting caught up on details like
what exactly "Encapsulate Field" does, or starts having troubles due to
having created several different objects with conflicting names...

another problem is that many IDE commands tend to depend heavily on
mouse-movements (such as pointy-clicky or operating menus), which can eat up
more time than the equivalent sets of keyboard actions (if one really gets
into it).

for example, if it takes around 5-8 seconds to do an action with a mouse,
but one can do the same with the keyboard in around 3-4 seconds, then not
much is saved (apart from maybe one being accused of jackhammering the
keyboard...).

granted, for the most part IDE's still tend to work pretty well as
text-editors. apart from many of them being laggy and having poor response
times, and it can be disorientating when one is typing faster than the thing
can update the text on the screen... (granted, this can also be a problem
with other apps as well...).


however, as noted, language may also effect a lot.

for example, Java imposes the one-class-per-file restriction, and this
itself can eat time (since then one has to manage many more files, which
typically means much more jumping between files, ...). this is different
from something like C or C++ where one can generally put however much code
per file is convinient (which often ends up being around 500 - 1500 lines
per file IME).


granted, much more of the time though, one typically goes at a more
leisurely pace, often due to things like doing other stuff, thinking about
stuff (having to stop and think is itself a great time-eater), ...

if one considers all the huge masses of time that usually go into having to
stop and think about stuff (like strategize and consider implementation
strategies and such...) then this likely eats up much of the overall
performance differences (the great flow of mind-to-code broken by the
consideration of how to work a given feature into the existing codebase,
....).


or such...


From: John B. Matthews on
In article <hrghdl$35u$1(a)news.albasani.net>,
"BGB / cr88192" <cr88192(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> Java imposes the one-class-per-file restriction

More specifically, one public, top-level class per file. There can be an
arbitrary number of package-private and nested classes.

<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.6>
<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html>
<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html>

--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
From: Lew on
BGB / cr88192 wrote:
> I think a lot of this would depend on various factors:
> the speed and skills of the developers involved;
> the particular languages and coding practices in use;
> ...
>
> for example, a developer who can (on a good day) churn out several kloc/day
> with Notepad and with a relatively low error rate, will naturally still be
> much faster than someone who fudges away getting caught up on details like
> what exactly "Encapsulate Field" does, or starts having troubles due to
> having created several different objects with conflicting names...

In other words, a developer who understands programming and knows what they're
doing will outperform a developer who doesn't.

I don't think the IDE is a factor in that.

A developer who can churn out effective and useful code (KLOC being a useless
measure of productivity) with an IDE and a low error rate will naturally be
much faster (and more effective) than someone who fudges away with a text
editor, getting caught up on details like what exactly encapsulating a field
is, or has troubles due to the creation of several different objects with
conflicting names.

(One period suffices to end a sentence.)

--
Lew