[Sussex] RE: The 'D' programming language

[Geoff Teale]

<snipped where not needed>
Steve wrote:
------------
> Wasn't that what APL was designed to be - and who uses that now?
> Answers on a postcard please to:
> I don't give a damn
> 4 feet South of Western Pier
> Brighton
> 
> :-)

ROTFLMAO! APL... stop it, it hurts when I laugh... :)

> What!!!!  Even sculpture - which, when approached from a tactile PoV,
> can be appreciated by the deaf.  I'd like an explanation of what you 
> mean - the reference when over my head.

Sorry it's a famous quote, I forget who from (else I'd have creditied it) -
it was there for humour value.
  
> > All third generation programming languages are pressured by 
> > users towards the state of "C".
> Agreed - although I don't know why.

Because most developers are not "hackers", they fear change, they would
rather expand the language they know than experience the simple joy of
learning a new one.  Businesses compound this problem by frowning on people
straying from the norm.  Many company's will not allow the developers to use
anything other than VB even if the job is down right impossible in that
language - this has several roots:

0\ [valid] businesses need to ensure that they have staff with the skills to
support their software, in order to achieve this they try and minimise the
number of languages in use.

1\ [partially valid] A lot of people are taken in by the marketing blurb and
believe that any program can be written in VB in a quarter of the time it
can be written in any other language (soooo not true for non-trivial
applications).

2\ [completely invalid] "We can't use that, it's not standard!" - almost
always "not standard" means it doesn't come on MSDN subscription disks.

<snippage>
> But we have a response to this: eXtream Programming.  I may 
> not solve the
> underlying problem but at least is has a cool name.

That's the best justification of eXtreme Programming I have ever seen.  My
experience is that it works very well in a OO environment with a responsive
client who hasn't got their head up their bottom.  Even if you can't adopt
it there are a lot of things to be learnt from it.

<snippage>
> In this thread (on language syntax for what of a better term) the 
> Java syntax is not a revolution - it far to close to C/C++ for that.
> By removing the clutter the syntax is just another evolution.
> 
> How Java was execute was the revolution.  It showed that 
> interpretation
> was viable - which was not the think 20 years before when everyone 
> jumped on the compiler bandwagon.

THis is of course what I meant.  The syntax is nice, but the selling point
of Java was cross platform, web deliverable applications.  Java was truely
the language of the internet boom in the 1990s.. now it has matured into
back end systems  for the network world and it's bullying it's way into
embedded space.

> You are, of course, entitled to your preferences.  Personally my views
> are that there are very, very few places where hand code assembler is
> better than good C code compiled by a good compiler.
<snip>


YOu misread me.. I meant I would find it more entertaining (and challenging)
to write assmebly language display hacks all day long - but this is not
something that has any practical value to me so exanding my C/C++ knowledge
takes priority.

<snip>
> I think .NET has another draw back - it is limited to only 
> one platform!

Which of course robs it of Java's biggest selling point and makes the choice
of interpreted code a slightly less attractive proposition.  

-- 
geoff.teale at claybrook.co.uk
tealeg at member.fsf.org

"Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to
make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to
life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral."
   - Richard M Stallman


The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company