1. OT: Learning programming languages
Here's an interesting (and perhaps opinionated) article on learning programming
languages today -- which ones when, why, and so on:
http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/introductory-language/
Way back when I was first getting my digital feet wet TTYs, tape drives, and
mainframes were king and everybody spoke Fortran, COBOL, and maybe Algol. C
wasn't really invented back then, but it had an interesting history about that
time:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html
And for those that want to see the value of Euphoria, take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)
All this brings me up to a question, where is Euphoria going?
If the future of computing is multiple cores, 64 or 128 bit processors, easy
GUIs for users, and managing data, shouldn't Euphoria be thinking ahead...?
Happy coding...
--
jon
2. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
jxliv7 wrote:
>
>
> Here's an interesting (and perhaps opinionated) article on learning
> programming
> languages today -- which ones when, why, and so on:
>
> <a
> href="http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/introductory-language/">http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/introductory-language/</a>
>
>
> Way back when I was first getting my digital feet wet TTYs, tape drives, and
> mainframes were king and everybody spoke Fortran, COBOL, and maybe Algol. C
> wasn't really invented back then, but it had an interesting history about that
> time:
>
> <a
> href="http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html">http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html</a>
>
>
> And for those that want to see the value of Euphoria, take a look here:
>
> <a
> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_</a>(programming_language)
>
>
> All this brings me up to a question, where is Euphoria going?
>
> If the future of computing is multiple cores, 64 or 128 bit processors, easy
> GUIs for users, and managing data, shouldn't Euphoria be thinking ahead...?
>
>
> Happy coding...
>
>
> --
> jon
here's an extract from 'Linux:Rute user's tutorial and exposition' by Paul Sheer
"Many people who don't program very well in C think of C as an arbitrary
language out of many. This point should be made at once: C is the fundamental
basis of all computing in the world today. UNIX, Microsoft Windows, office
suites, web browsers and device drivers are all written in C. Ninety-nine percent
of your time spent at a computer is probably spent using an application written
in C. About 70% of all ``open source'' software is written in C, and the
remaining 30% written in languages whose compilers or interpreters are written in
C."
and
"Further, there is no replacement for C. Since it fulfills its purpose almost
flawlessly, there will never be a need to replace it. Other languages may fulfill
other purposes, but C fulfills its purpose most adequately. For instance, all
future operating systems will probably be written in C for a long time to come."
wouldn't it be more useful to ask 'what is Euphoria's purpose?' rather than
'where is it going?' If C 'fulfils its purpose almost flawlessly' then it doesn't
make much sense to ask 'where is C going?'.
3. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
- Posted by irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com>
Apr 12, 2007
-
Last edited Apr 13, 2007
> "Further, there is no replacement for C. Since it fulfills its purpose almost
> flawlessly, there will never be a need to replace it.
Fulfills its purpose almost flawlessly, eh?
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
4. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
I am not sure if this is the forum to debate C vs Euphoria. Each has its
strengths. Euphoria is a higher level language which takes what was most annoying
about C and abstracts it. For example, character string manipulation.
I just wrote an application which uses BOTH C and Euphoria. The advantage to C
is that I had access to an interactive debugger (Watcom is the best). But I was
drawn to Euphoria, because someone here developed a Microsoft Windows WYSIWYG
code generating IDE similar to what one finds for Visual Basic. I have never
found anything like that available for free for C programmers.
Finally, the real debate is object vs procedural programming languages. And
because I am a procedural person whose eyes glaze over when looking at object
oriented code like C++, I found Euphoria very easy to learn. Euphoria is in the
same class of programming languages as C is.
Andy Katz
B.S. Computer Science, 1978
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
5. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
I have been using Euphoria for many years, I am still rubbish at programming but
I am an occasional user, the thing I like is that I can come back to it after a
long delay
and within a short time get back into it again, not something I could do with
other languages?
One thing I would like to see is something similar to a package where all the
common elements
are together, winlib, IDE, etc, and can be downloaded and installed as a
package.
This may make it easier for anyone starting out with Euphoria, thanks to all who
have made
this language available.
6. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
I notice he says:
"When I program, I'm using every tool in my arsenal,... "
Presumably it's a very small arsenal.
About 20 years ago someone produced a piece of software
called (IIRC) "The Last One". It was supposed to be
the only software you would ever need :)
Dunno what happened to it, or indeed what it did.
Well, I've built almost an entire house using hand-tools,
by myself. Yes, really; it's timber frame. I reckon I can
do a lot of things using hand tools. Some people can't use a
hand plane, but I can. But now I also have a power plane.
I can use both. Should I have campaigned against
power tools because you can do practically everything
with hand tools? Plainly, someone unable to handle
hand tools is rubbish; my goodness, for most of
history it was all there was, must be all you need ;)
Just say "OK, right, you don't say?" and carry on.
Regards, John
irv mullins wrote:
>
>
> > "Further, there is no replacement for C. Since it fulfills its purpose
> > almost
> > flawlessly, there will never be a need to replace it.
>
> Fulfills its purpose almost flawlessly, eh?
>
> Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Well, I see he says
7. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
John wrote:
> Well, I've built almost an entire house using hand-tools,> by myself. Yes,
> really; it's timber frame. I reckon I can
> do a lot of things using hand tools. Some people can't use a
> hand plane, but I can. But now I also have a power plane.
> I can use both. Should I have campaigned against
> power tools because you can do practically everything
> with hand tools? Plainly, someone unable to handle
> hand tools is rubbish; my goodness, for most of
> history it was all there was, must be all you need ;)
Well, I'm pretty sure I've built at least 12 more houses
than you have, so let's continue with that analogy:
If a workman showed up with a dull, bent handsaw and twisted,
termite-infested lumber to build one of MY houses, he would
be fired on the spot - no matter how "adequate" he insisted
those tools might be, or how they had been used by carpenters
since the Middle Ages.
-
As for C fulfilling its purpose almost flawlessly,
I might agree, if that purpose is to make it dead simple to
compromise the security of nearly every computer on earth, while
at the same time making the honest programmer's job much more difficult.
All of Windows' many flaws aren't there because Mr. Gates
can't afford to hire good programmers, they're mostly there because
of the antiquated and poorly-designed programming language they're using.
8. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
irv mullins wrote:
> All of Windows' many flaws aren't there because Mr. Gates
> can't afford to hire good programmers, they're mostly there because
> of the antiquated and poorly-designed programming language they're using.
Irv, are you still using Euphoria? What other language(s) do you use these days?
9. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
- Posted by Jules Davy <jdavy at dsl.pipex.com>
Apr 16, 2007
-
Last edited Apr 17, 2007
> All of Windows' many flaws aren't there because Mr. Gates
> can't afford to hire good programmers, they're mostly there because
> of the antiquated and poorly-designed programming language they're using.
personally I'm not a big fan of C, but Irv, how can you say this when Unix/Linux
is written in it?
10. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
- Posted by Gary Shingles <eu at 531pi.co.nz>
Apr 16, 2007
-
Last edited Apr 17, 2007
Jules Davy wrote:
>
> > All of Windows' many flaws aren't there because Mr. Gates
> > can't afford to hire good programmers, they're mostly there because
> > of the antiquated and poorly-designed programming language they're using.
>
> personally I'm not a big fan of C, but Irv, how can you say this when
> Unix/Linux
> is written in it?
My dad always used to say: "It's a poor workman who blames his tools"
Which I believe is a common saying 
Gary
11. Re: OT: Learning programming languages
Gary Shingles wrote:
>
> Jules Davy wrote:
> >
> > > All of Windows' many flaws aren't there because Mr. Gates
> > > can't afford to hire good programmers, they're mostly there because
> > > of the antiquated and poorly-designed programming language they're using.
> >
> > personally I'm not a big fan of C, but Irv, how can you say this when
> > Unix/Linux
> > is written in it?
>
> My dad always used to say: "It's a poor workman who blames his tools"
> Which I believe is a common saying
>
> Gary
This is quite true. However, it's also a poor workman who doesn't try to
increase amount, quality and efficiency of his/her work. And this goes
through updating his toolbox and his ability to use what's inside it.
You can do almost everything in Eu. But, too often, in an error prone, time
consuming way. Hence, some changes/additions are needed, not because you
absolutely can't do without them, but because you get software developed in
less time with less many bugs. This is even more important when so many
users develop in their spare time.
CChris
