Re: What's holding Euphoria back ?
Quality <quality at ANNEX.COM> wrote:
>I just am saddened by the lack of historic perspective that is no longer
>taught in programming classes these days... A lot of Computer Science
>graduates seem to have not even a basic understanding of how computer
>languages have evolved and all the hard work that went into giving them the
>power they now enjoy.
This has been a concern of mine as well. It seems to me -- at least in the
U.S., perhaps this is also true elsewhere -- that Computer Science (and much
of the educational system) is only concerned with teaching the "how to"s,
and not much, if any, of the hows and whys. Many of today's fast-paced
computer degrees reward those who can easily memorize all the contradictory
rules that have become part of a language (such as C), but doesn't reward
those who try to examine *why* it works the way it does, or how it came to
be that way. While you don't *need* to learn the history or the concepts
behind a language to program in it, the degree to which these things are
ignored is appalling. Since many CompSci students don't know or understand
the history of programming, they don't know *why* one language is better
than the other, or *how* languages have developed in the past and may
develop in the future. Many come to like a language simply Because That's
The Language Everybody Uses, So It Must Be The Best.
This lack of interest in the whys and hows is also, IMO, part of why
Euphoria's been having a hard time getting its due. For today's programmers
to understand what makes Euphoria so revolutionary, they would have to
understand how it changes the way they can program -- they would have to
know the whys and hows behind the way they currently program in other
languages to understand the fundamental changes they can make to their
approach in Euphoria. But because today's programmers are locked into
rule-memorization -- with little or no understanding of the concepts and
ideals at work -- they don't get it. They would simply look at the
superficial aspects of the language, and complain about the lack of a flashy
Windows interface, lack of their pet feature(s) from some other language,
etc. Not that these are irrelevant or unimportant -- indeed, *I'd* sure love
to see a flashy Windows interface for Euphoria -- but focusing exclusively
on superficial differences can cause them to overlook what's actually there.
Instead of learning and discovering what makes Euphoria Euphoria, they'd
simply put it down because it isn't Visual Basic, or because it isn't C, or
because it isn't Java.
And there's obviously no easy solution for this one. In many programmers'
minds, a language can't possibly be any good if it isn't supported by some
huge company. This may partially be a support thing -- nobody wants to write
important programs in a language that'll disappear from the face of the
earth the next week -- but it's also very much a lack of understanding. If
the programmers would look at Euphoria for what it *is*, rather what it
*isn't*, there would be more interest. But it's easier to code on autopilot,
with methodologies and rules fixed. Especially with today's detail-filled,
increasingly complex languages -- they've got their hands full just
*learning* the features of the languages they supposedly already know, so
why in the world would they bother learning an entirely different language
which actually forces them to change some of their methods and assumptions
about programming?
This is the frustration I feel when trying to introduce Euphoria to other
programmers. They just don't look at it closely enough to understand what
makes it so revolutionary. They're comfortable with what they already know,
and don't want to learn some useless, interpreted,
no-flashy-windows-interface language that's still primarily DOS-based. I can
try imploring them to look beyond the superficial, describe to them the
concept and power of sequences, the ecstacy of freedom from semicolons,
etc., etc. But paradigms don't budge easily -- like glaciers, they shift
VEEEERRRY slowly. And only when they have to.
The recent posts about getting Euphoria into programming classrooms is
definitely a step in the right direction. Show them the language while their
minds are still open enough to look at all the possibilities, while it can
still have a formative influence on the way they program, and on the way
they *think* about programming. I discovered Euphoria on the internet at
around the same time I was learning new programming languages at college,
and the fact that I was being exposed to many new languages definitely
helped me to learn Euphoria more quickly, as well as recognizing how unusual
and unique it was compared to all the other languages.
Anyway, I guess that's sort of my long frustration vent. Am I right on the
money? Or am I way off the mark?
Gabriel Boehme
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
