Hobby languages
in [Cobol]
|
From: Alistair on 26 Jul 2010 06:55 On Jul 23, 6:58 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:21:02 +0200, Fritz Wuehler > > <fr...(a)spamexpire-201007.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > >> Interesting: None of you mentioned Java. > > >That was intentional because we're mostly mainframe guys with sense ;) > > >My opinion is Java is a solution looking for a problem and that it has > >contributed to the dumbing-down of coding without contributing anything > >else. It's sloppy, unsafe, and bloated both in source and runtime. I don't > >know of any reason to use Java anywhere when real programming languages are > >available instead. > > 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. > > Since I'm writing only for myself, doing simple projects these aren't > useful strengths. The only advantage of OO is if I find objects > already written which, say, read the English language dictionary. > (although I would be happy with functions or library code that can do > that). Resource use doesn't bother me for my needs. Afriend of mine taught himself Java and wrote a nifty covering letter generator. Some months later he went to add in some new functionality and found to his horror that he didn't understand any of the code he had previously written. Be warned.
From: Alistair on 26 Jul 2010 07:00 On Jul 24, 2:25 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > As a sometime regular poster here remarked on several occasions: "It is the > Artist, not the paintbrush." > and as one artist remarked: you're paying for the 25 years of experience and not the twenty minutes it took to effect the work of art.
From: Fred Mobach on 26 Jul 2010 08:52 Pete Dashwood wrote: > Jessica Colman wrote: >>> 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... :-) >> >> Let me know if you come to Munich :-)) >> >> Jessica > > Thank you, Jessica. :-) > > I lived in Dueselldorf for around 4 years and, of course, visited > Muenchen and Bayern. I still have a few friends in Germany but it is > unlikely I'll spend time working there again. > > These days I am enjoying being home and the Pacific lifestyle. I missed the obvious remark about the Bavarian beers, which might have influenced your choices. ;-) -- Fred Mobach - fred(a)mobach.nl website : https://fred.mobach.nl .... In God we trust .... .. The rest we monitor ..
From: Howard Brazee on 26 Jul 2010 09:16 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:25:10 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >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. The criteria for "dumbing down" changes over time. And it applies to a wide variety of skills besides computers. Old timers tend to regret changes that make their own skills less valuable in new environments. That lamentation is as old as time. -- "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 09:20
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:01:58 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote: >> 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. After adjusting your numbers to be more realistic - we can say the same thing about people who drive cars or exercise their bodies, or use language. It very rarely matters how the internals work to achieve the desired goal. -- "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 |