Hobby languages
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 26 Jul 2010 09:22 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:01:58 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote: >That's nonsense. The point is you have to have some view of good and bad or >you're lost. Not everything is acceptable, and the more you know and the >more pride you take in your work, the more you have opinions based on >experience about what good and bad mean and how they affect life in the >long run. Base "good and bad" upon objectives and measurable criteria. Otherwise you are talking religion. And the objectives shouldn't be based upon "clean code", but upon "are the needs of the customer met". -- "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: Howard Brazee on 26 Jul 2010 09:24 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:01:58 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote: >> You have become so accustomed to viewing a PC as a Mainframe that you >> have lost sight of what they CAN accomplish. > >I don't think so, I find PC's very limited and not interesting. Ahh, therefore tools that are optimized for PC use are a waste! I see. -- "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: Howard Brazee on 26 Jul 2010 09:27 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:01:58 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote: >I don't agree (with the last part!) There are many awful languages, if I >was to list a few I would include Java, C++, Pascal, and most if not all >interpreted languages. There are very few great languages, especially if >you're talking about great general purpose languages. There are many great >specialty languages but their usage is obviously limited. What makes a >language great? Expressiveness, clarity, quality of the executable >produced, things like that. What makes a language awful? Complexity, >inefficiency, complicated syntax for it's own sake, ugliness, etc. Yes, >there is an aspect of art in programming languages. They are tools but so >is a 2 dollar Chinese pot-metal chisel and so is a 300 dollar hand-forged >and machined chisel and I know the difference. Measured on how much it costs to do the job. Which includes programming, platform, maintenance, etc. If I'm going to be paid $10 to poke a hole in a stone wall, I'm not going to buy a $300 tool. That would be an ugly decision and a poor choice. -- "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: Howard Brazee on 26 Jul 2010 09:33 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:01:58 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote: >It is an abomination, and you would know that if you had looked at >it. First of all there is no one PC assembly language, that in itself is a >big problem. You shouldn't have to learn 2 completely opposite syntaxes to >use assembler on one platform and to be able to move code from system to >system. You do have to do that on the PC. A big attraction of CoBOL is that I could run it on a Honeywell or Univac or IBM or any one of the mainframe computers - even though: First of all there is no one mainframe assembly language. But Java is better at running on different platforms than CoBOL is. -- "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: Howard Brazee on 26 Jul 2010 09:35
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:24:49 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>You shouldn't >> need to buy a new mainframe every year or two according to your view, >> but you do need to because of inefficient code and applications. > >I actually have no opinon about how often someone should replace their >mainframe; largely because my company doesn't currently use a mainframe. >However, for the sake of this discussion, let's say I don't think people >need to buy a new mainframe every year or two. And yet they do. Is it >because of "inefficient code and applications" (basically, >"incompetence"...) or is it because they have been persuaded by a salesman >that what they have is obsolete, or it won't run the latest and greatest >apps that are about to be released, or support is likely to be dropped, or >any one of dozens of "other" reasons why? > >My point is that the reason you cite is NOT the ONLY possible reason... As computers get cheaper, we use them more. We buy more hard drives, and use tapes less. We upgrade the processors so the batch jobs that used to run from 1:00 to 7:00 get done at 3:00. We upgrade the efficiency so that we don't need so much air conditioning and space. And we add capability to have a big data warehouse with real-time access for customers to make better decisions. -- "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 |