Re: enough chatter
On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:40:56 -0600, Kat <KSMiTH at PELL.NET> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bernie Ryan <bwryan at PCOM.NET>
>To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
>Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 9:53 AM
>Subject: enough chatter
>
>
>> The list has hundreds and hundreds of lines of rattle about why the
>>
>> language should be changed and how I do something in another language.
>>
>> Some people are on the list to learn programming and want to ask
>questions.
>>
>> Some people on the list tell us about all these wonderful things they
>>
>> can do but I never see them distribute any code to the list ( maybe it's
>>
>> vapor ware ). The real challenge is try to use the langauge the way it
>>
>> was designed and try to develop aids to help other programmers so they
>>
>> can gain from your quality code and experienced skills.
>
>I was thinking the puters (and the languages they are programmed in) were
>tools to Get Something Done. The faster a useful application was developed,
>and the faster it ran with the most stability was the sign of a good
>programmer using a good language, and good programming tools.
>
>How was i to know the purpose of a new language was mere mental exercise? I
>guess i'm just not esoteric enough. Sounds like you could have said: "The
>purpose of Windows95 is to use the OS as it was designed and try to develop
>aids to help other programmers so they can gain from your quality code and
>experienced skills." , and if that were the case, we should all go back to
>assy code and gwbasic or msdos5 or unix, and improve our skills there.
><sigh> I am trying to sidestep philosophy here,, but i thought the reason
>for Eu was to improve the plight of programmers with better faster and
>easier scripting tools. I once had most of 6502 machine code memorized, but
>that didn't really make me a better programmer,, cause i was too involved
>with how the puter did things, and not how the application did things. Darn
>it, when i want to skip some code, i don't want to bracket that code and
>test if it should be executed, i want to goto some target on the other side
>of it, the very definition of skipping it! How the interpreter/compiler
>treats my goto, how it is translated to machine code, i don't really care
>anymore,, just *do* it. I am in search of a 4th gen language, not another
>dos batch language. I want to concentrate more on program flow on a higher
>level. You don't haveto want what i want, you don't haveto code like i do,
>or use the same words in whatever language,, if Eu gets a goto command, you
>don't haveto use it,, same for an "open sock/port/file <name>" command or a
>"local var" list or a "start thread <name>" command. The more versatile a
>language is, it can be used in more varied places by programmers with a
>wider range of programming styles. Your mileage may vary.
>
>Kat,
>growl.
>working on that "quality code and experienced skills" prior to distribution.
Kat,
I take back every evil thing that I ever said about you. Hooray to your
sentiments. I still think you are wrong about goto, but I'll be glad to
continue to discuss it until one of us convinces the other or not as the
case may be. I really would appreciate some attempt to answer my
last foray against your logic. In an interpretive language, commenting
out works really nicely. Of course, block comments would make it
easier.
Regards,
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
