Functional Programming book review
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 14 Jun 2010 11:02 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:24:12 -0400, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >A well-written C program, with ample comments and embedded >documentation, formatted with something like Doxygen, is more readable >than the equivalent COBOL program written in the classic 1970s >verbose-for-the-sake-of-verbose style. You don't even need to know C >if the documentation is decent. I do like the documentation tools available in languages such as Java. But I still figure documentation is an assist about what the writer meant as I read the code to see what was actually written. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Michael Wojcik on 15 Jun 2010 10:45 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <huu9lq0crm(a)news2.newsguy.com>, > Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >> Few people seem >> to want to make the effort to write decently structured, maintainable, >> robust code when they work in PHP. > > Oh, I *cannot* resist... > > ... and this makes PHP differ from just about any other language... how? There are languages which enforce more structure, or at least strongly encourage it. There are languages which try to avoid having a dozen slightly different ways to accomplish any given task. There are languages which try for some consistency and discernible design in the language itself. In other words, there are languages where writing decently structured, maintainable, robust code is less effort than it is in PHP, and where learning the language entails learning some principles for writing such code. PHP is a classic example of an undesigned language; the developers just toss in features as they think of them. It's even worse in this respect than Perl, and Larry Wall (the creator of Perl) has famously said that he doesn't design languages but just tosses in things as he thinks of them. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Howard Brazee on 15 Jun 2010 13:48 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:45:19 -0400, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >>> Few people seem >>> to want to make the effort to write decently structured, maintainable, >>> robust code when they work in PHP. >> >> Oh, I *cannot* resist... >> >> ... and this makes PHP differ from just about any other language... how? > >There are languages which enforce more structure, or at least strongly >encourage it. There are languages which try to avoid having a dozen >slightly different ways to accomplish any given task. There are >languages which try for some consistency and discernible design in the >language itself. So you are saying that there are languages that require less effort. Does that mean that people make the effort in those languages? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Pete Dashwood on 16 Jun 2010 08:18 Michael Wojcik wrote: > docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <huu9lq0crm(a)news2.newsguy.com>, >> Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>> Few people seem >>> to want to make the effort to write decently structured, >>> maintainable, robust code when they work in PHP. >> >> Oh, I *cannot* resist... >> >> ... and this makes PHP differ from just about any other language... >> how? > > There are languages which enforce more structure, or at least strongly > encourage it. There are languages which try to avoid having a dozen > slightly different ways to accomplish any given task. There are > languages which try for some consistency and discernible design in the > language itself. > > In other words, there are languages where writing decently structured, > maintainable, robust code is less effort than it is in PHP, and where > learning the language entails learning some principles for writing > such code. > > PHP is a classic example of an undesigned language; the developers > just toss in features as they think of them. It's even worse in this > respect than Perl, and Larry Wall (the creator of Perl) has famously > said that he doesn't design languages but just tosses in things as he > thinks of them. A footnote to what I said earlier about using PHP. I do find it very useful for SOME things. I mentioned that I was writing CGI code in it. I did this really as an exercise to get to know it better and in some areas it was really good. BUT it has limitations. I didn't like using it for RDB access and I replaced some of the CGI code with C#. Dealing with file attachments from forms was also a bit problematic. It could be that I don't know it well enough, but as I need to have forms, file attachments, and database table updates and creations working by Monday, I dropped back into C# code-behinds... :-) I agree PHP lacks structure, but some people don't care as long as it works, and it certainly does work pretty well. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 16 Jun 2010 08:19 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:45:19 -0400, Michael Wojcik > <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >>>> Few people seem >>>> to want to make the effort to write decently structured, >>>> maintainable, robust code when they work in PHP. >>> >>> Oh, I *cannot* resist... >>> >>> ... and this makes PHP differ from just about any other language... >>> how? >> >> There are languages which enforce more structure, or at least >> strongly encourage it. There are languages which try to avoid having >> a dozen slightly different ways to accomplish any given task. There >> are languages which try for some consistency and discernible design >> in the language itself. > > So you are saying that there are languages that require less effort. > Does that mean that people make the effort in those languages? I reckon a bad programmer is a bad programmer in ANY language... Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: cobol pic definition Next: Readibility of code was Re: Functional Programming book review |