Hobby languages
in [Cobol]
|
From: Jessica Colman on 24 Jul 2010 13:19 >> Interesting: None of you mentioned Java. > > That was intentional because we're mostly mainframe guys with sense ;) Well, I may not be a mainframe GUY, but I'm not with no sense ;-)) For almost anything, Pete answered in better terms than I could (he spoke "out of my soul" as say in Germany). > Do you not have to pay big euros for Rational anything? This is not an advertisement on Rational stuff. But I really love the concept behind RTC. The Express-C edition is free for up to 10 developers and for "hobby programming" the missing features included in the (expensive) enterprise edition do not matter. If you like: Go to http://jazz.net > >> So, my recommendation is: Java with Eclipse and ANT. > > But that takes a PC with alot of power. Most commodity PC's die under the > bloat of Java and Eclipse. > Yes, in this case you are right (the only case :-)). But developing in Java or any OO language needs a smart and powerful IDE. A simple editor just won't do. But the benefit you get from eclipse is worth spending some euros or dollars on a powerful PC. Jessica
From: Nomen Nescio on 24 Jul 2010 18:01 > It is an excellent way to pick up the concepts of Object Orientation, as > it was designed around those concepts. No it is not. It is an excellent way to pick up Java's view of OO, which is not the same thing. > If by "dumbing down" you mean simpler, less intricate code, then how is > that a bad thing? Because 100 out of 100 Java "programmers" have no idea what the machine is doing, and 99/100 Java coders have no idea what the JVM is doing. I don't consider anything that enables idiots to write code that more or less provides the desired output as helpful or worthwhile. > "sloppy" : Languages are not sloppy; programmers are sloppy. Not true, language designs themselves can be sloppy, and Java is an example of that. > "unsafe" : Competent programmers and compilers/interpreters make code > in any language safe. Also not true, Java constrains you and simply doesn't offer the facilities it should, so no matter how competent you are you can't write safe code in Java. > There are benefits in using Java or any other high level language over > most Assembler level languages, but compactness of code and run time are > not one of those particular benefits. That doesn't mean it is bloated, it > just means the resources provided are being used to obtain benefits that > weren't previously available or to obtain benefits that are considered to > be more important than size of runtime. I haven't seen any code worth writing where the questionable usefulness or "benefits" of Java are worth the burden of a VM and runtime. > It is just silly in this day and age, with the computing resources now > available, to rant about modern languages "dumbing down" the art of > programming and requiring bloated resources. There was a time (when we > managed overlays manually in very limited memory) when these things were > important. Nowadays, except for some highly specialised command and > control and real time processing systems (which are not a general part of > commercial application development), they are not. I don't agree with your view, and it's clear that people who share it are wrong. True, computing resources have grown but not to offset the performance costs of sloppy code and poorly designed languages and applications. That is one of the reasons we're in a recession, because the costs of doing business based on incompetent CTO's making incorrect technical decisions has made IT a huge cost. 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. > ANYONE can have access to COBOL on the PC and there are some excellent > implementations available. I have been using Micro Focus and Fujitsu > COBOL for over 20 years on PCs. They are both excellent products. I said they're not commonly found on the PC and they are not. Just because you bought them doesn't mean everyone can buy them, especially when most PC users consider 49 or 99 dollars an upper limit for any PC app. > PC Assembly is no more an abomination than BAL is. They are just > different, that's all. If you consider the unfamiliar to be an > "abomination" then that says more about your mind set than it does about > the language in question. 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. > Making programming into a religion may not be a good path to follow. It > is just computer programming. If you feel so strongly that any breach of > your commandments for good programming is offensive or an abomination, > then you are likely to miss out on much that is good and useful. However, > it is of course, a personal choice. 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. > I can't imagine why. Do you also want your bicycle to be as much like a > car as it can? :-) The difference is I can afford both a bicycle and a car for their different uses but most people cannot afford a mainframe. Given mainframe people know mainframes are better, everyone should want one. > they can do things that mainframes never could. Notice that the arrival > of the internet didn't happen in the decades when mainframes ruled the > world. Not so, I used internet from a mainframe before most people knew there was an internet. And we could argue it was better in those days ;) > And yet the world stabbed itself in the eyes with a pen for 50 years, and > in some quarters is still doing it. Those of us who made a living from > COBOL did not notice any soreness of the eyes. On the contrary, we > actually loved it. (I still enjoy working in COBOL although I find it > more tedious now than I used to before I knew there were better > alternatives available.) You seem to be arguing against yourself. > I would strongly contest your statement that COBOL is "too limited for > general purpose programming", having written applications that range from > heuristic maze traversal, through syntax scanning and parsing of language > > and free format postal addresses, to interactive Web Pages with it, but > > maybe your concept of "limited" and mine are two different ones. You can code almost anything in any language (and you certainly seem to have done so!) but that doesn't prove that language is a good choice. Being a good coder is having access to the right tools and knowing which ones to use and which not to use. COBOL is certainly not suited to much beyond reports and financial systems (where it does shine). Using the correct languages for all these projects would have made the code much smaller, more readable, and more maintainable. > 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. > OK, I'm sure your post was light hearted (as my response has been) but > the bottom line is that Java is a perfectly good language... and so are > ADA, COBOL, and, in fact, MOST computer programming languages. 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.
From: Non scrivetemi on 24 Jul 2010 18:12 > Java's big strength is that it can run everywhere. Other strengths > include garbage management, and finding people who can work with it is > tops. Garbage collection is not a strength, it exposes a fundamental weakness in the design of Java and other languages requiring garbage collection. It's interesting to see how people have been sold on the benefits of something that should never have been necessary in the first place. Java may run everywhere but it's not (nearly) as portable as Ada. Bjarne Stroustrup made a point of playing up this deficiency in Java, noting that often Java applications need to be changed to run on a new platform. Since you noted you only want something for Mac, it is not obvious why you think "running everywhere" is a strength. If you really want something that runs everywhere (as opposed to something that installs on many platforms and doesn't necessarily run) then both C and C++ are much better choices. > Ummm, I guess its ubiquity also means I could find more Internet help > with Java. Ubiquity only means you can find more internet noise with Java. > I have no idea what criteria you use for "Real Programming Languages". I enumerated a few of them earlier.
From: starwars on 24 Jul 2010 19:59 > > That was intentional because we're mostly mainframe guys with sense ;) > > Well, I may not be a mainframe GUY, but I'm not with no sense ;-)) I was surprised to see someone (guy or woman) with 18 years of mainframe experience who actually likes Java but Pete also has some years and likes it. I've been around as long as Pete and I hate it. So we can't draw many conclusions except you and Pete would probably enjoy a long weekend together. Get a room!
From: Pete Dashwood on 24 Jul 2010 23:15
starwars wrote: >>> That was intentional because we're mostly mainframe guys with sense >>> ;) >> >> Well, I may not be a mainframe GUY, but I'm not with no sense ;-)) > > I was surprised to see someone (guy or woman) with 18 years of > mainframe experience who actually likes Java but Pete also has some > years and likes it. I've been around as long as Pete and I hate it. > So we can't draw many conclusions except you and Pete would probably > enjoy a long weekend together. Get a room! I spent 20 years prgramming mainframes (and not just IBM ones, either). Largely because there was no alternative. Started programming in 1965 in assembler languaes and moved to COBOL in 1967. (Actually, I got dragged kicking and screaming into COBOL and it was some time before I recognised how useful it was... I think my programming level at that time was much akin to what Nomen Nescio's development appears to be currently: "What I know and the way I do it is the only RIGHT way". Ah, the arrogance of youth.. :-) Fortunately, we grow...:-)) I have a soft spot for Java because it enabled me to learn Object Orientation at a time when OO COBOL seemed unintelligible. Apart from that, many people and companies find Java to be a very good development language and, as I mentioned, I have managed some significant projects where Java and Eclipse were the development platform and they worked very well. AFTER teaching myself Java and writing a few applications in it (I can highly recommend Rogers Cadenhead's book "Sam's teach yourself Java 2 in 24 hours" although that was not the only book I referenced) I was able to go back to OO COBOL and it all fell into place. I believe that after 18 years as a mainframe programmer, Jessica is entitled to bit more respect than has been shown by some posters (not naming any names... just follow my eyes... :-)) That was partly why I posted in favour of Java, but mainly because I honestly believe Java to be a useful language. For myself, I don't use it much any more as I prefer C#, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that many people are very happy with it. Don't you think it is kind of sad to get emotional about a computer programming language? I LOVE x... I HATE y... where x and y are rigidly codified systems of communicating with computers. How can you HATE Java, or any other language? Iguess we can all have our preferences but assigning strong emotion to computer programming languages is really just silly. (And I have been as guilty of this over the years as anybody else here...Fortunately, as time passes and experience is acquired, we grow...) I HATE racial intolerance and social injustice... I intensely dislike JSP programming. :-) As for getting a room with Jessica: if we were working on a Java project I'd be happy to do that, and share it with the rest of the team as well... :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |