David H. Burns wrote:
> Programming 
> should not be restricted
> to "professional programmers" anymore than writing a paragraph should be 
> restricted to
> professional writers!

Who said it should?

> Now you're just being silly! In fact they *do* teach it in grade school. 

Math is hard! Let's go shopping! </barbie>

> I think I'm going to cut out. This thread has become to personal.

It just seems to me that someone who has never designed or written a large 
program telling me that "hey, your profession is not really hard, you're 
just hallucinating" is rather insulting.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> I have programmed a lot, albeit all small stuff. More complex programs
> are of course more difficult
> and OOP may be justified if it makes that more easily. Programming
> should not be restricted
> to "professional programmers" anymore than writing a paragraph should be
> restricted to
> professional writers!

And guess what - it isn't.

Grab any language you like, get a compiler (or interpreter) and go ahead.

"But," you'll say, "all out there these days has been invaded by OOP and is of
no use for me!"

Here's good news for you: You're wrong.

Fact is that yes, today's mainstream languages virtually *all* come with OOP
support, so they can be applied to large and complex projects.

Fact is also, however, that older languages have not ceased to exist, and there
are even modern compilers and interpreters being developed for them. Some have
introduced dialects with OOP support, but without breaking compatibility.

You love Pascal, but Borland has discontinued its Turbo-Pascal IDE/compiler
series some decade ago, and the old versions can only produce obsolete 16-bit
code? Then maybe you want to have a look at Free Pascal, which even comes with
a clone of the good old Turbo-Pascal IDE. Or just have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language) to see what else is
currently cooking with that language.

Your favorite language is some other? Just have a look at Wikipedia whether
there's modern compilers or IDEs out there.


Just don't expect professional SW developers from stalling the technological
advancement of *their* weapons of choice just because you don't grok them. That
would be like trying to stop the advent of fountain pens because you as a
hobbyist writer would prefer to stick with the good old dip pen.

Guess what: You can still get dip pens *today* if you really want one. Despite
other "hypes" like ballpoint pens, mechanical typewriters, electrical
typewriters, and nowadays personal computers, first with typewheel printers or
needle dot matrix printers, later with inkjet or laser printers... but well,
who needs them? They have killed the art of writing with dip pens, haven't
they?

The only things from this list that seem to actually have died out are
mechanical typewriters (where electric ones won't do, too often weight or
maintenance is likely to be an issue as well, making pens or pencils the weapon
of choice) and typewheel printers (having been out-evolved by inkjet and laser
printers in terms of quality, and unable to compete with impact dot matrix
printers for carbon copy applications).

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>>> This, to me, sounds like saying "Chess isn't hard, only the opponents are!"
>>>
>> This is a poor analogy. In chess the major difficulty is the opponent,
>> but there is no opponent in programming.
> 
> Well, the task to solve with the program is, sort of. And in practice it *is* by
> far the major difficulty.
> 
> Possibly not though if you're programming only as a small hobby.
> 
> 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you mean "The task to accomplish 
with the
program is the major difficulty in practice.", I agree and that would be 
true for
projects large or small, professional or hobby. The difficulty of a 
programming task
is determined by the nature of the task not the difficulty of 
programming per se. But
even an easy programming task can be made difficult by programming tools 
that are
difficult to use.

As I said in another post, I'm about ready to cut out of this thread. I 
don't want to quit
without reiterating what a wonder program Pov-Ray is. My hat's off to 
anybody and everybody
who contributed to making it what it is. I couldn't have done a tiny 
fraction of it -- to tell the truth,
I never would have conceived of it or thought it could be done if I had!

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> It just seems to me that someone who has never designed or written a 
> large program telling me that "hey, your profession is not really hard, 
> you're just hallucinating" is rather insulting.
> 

If I ever said that, I most certainly apologize. I don't think I ever 
said that the
programming profession was not hard. All professions are hard in my book,
though some are harder than others. Some are fun; others don't seem to be--
but that may depend on the individual. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:


> You love Pascal...
Did I say I loved Pascal? I once learned it well enough to a fairly long 
(for me)
program in it. I have deliberately refrained from naming my favorite 
language for
fearr of the sneers.

> 
> Your favorite language is some other? Just have a look at Wikipedia whether
> there's modern compilers or IDEs out there.

I have deliberately refrained from naming my favorite language for
fearr of the sneers. But thanks a lot for this suggestion. I will look.
> 
> 

> Guess what: You can still get dip pens *today* if you really want one. 
I know. I wonder if one still get a "Rapideograph" type pen and ink that
would work in it.

Thank, again:)
David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> """
> The essence of a software entity is a construct of interlocking 
> concepts: data sets, relationships among data items, algorithms, and 
> invocations of functions. This essence is abstract in that such a 
> conceptual construct is the same under many different representations. 
> It is nonetheless highly precise and richly detailed.
> 
> I believe the hard part of building software to be the specification, 
> design, and testing of this conceptual construct, not the labor of 
> representing it and testing the fidelity of the representation. We still 
> make syntax errors, to be sure; but they are fuzz compared with the 
> conceptual errors in most systems.
> """
> 
> "Fundamental" means basic or essential.
> "Difficult" means requiring great physical or mental effort to 
> accomplish or comprehend.
> 
> So, yeah. If you actually study this stuff, you realize why programming 
> (amongst many other fields of endeavor) is fundamentally difficult.
> 

I fear my criterion for "difficult" rather subjective, something like: 
If I can do it, it's really
not all that difficult. :)

Of course applying words like "hard" or "difficult" to things like
"programming" or "applied mathematics" is misleading since some things 
included
within these"subjects" may be easy, some hard, some extremely hard.

David :)

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> But
> even an easy programming task can be made difficult by programming tools
> that are
> difficult to use.

No argument here - whether they be useless in general or just unsuited for the
task at hand. There are even programming languages *designed* to be so unsuited
for programming that there exist more compilers than working programs (Brainfuck
for instance, or Ook). But of course one doesn't have to resort to such
constructed examples in order to find particularly painful programming
languages or development tools.

That's why I think it is paramount that POV-Ray's next-generation SDL gets a
custom-tailored language syntax, instead of just integrating a parser and
runtime engine for a popular (or otherwise significant) scripting language as
often proposed.


> As I said in another post, I'm about ready to cut out of this thread.

I guess you're right, we're getting to the point where we're mainly reiterating.
I'll count on you reading that pov4 newsgroup though; have you managed to access
the earlier posts yet? If your newsreader still doesn't give you those, you may
try via the http://news.povray.org web interface to get an overview of what's
been discussed so far.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> > You love Pascal...
> Did I say I loved Pascal? I once learned it well enough to a fairly long
> (for me)
> program in it. I have deliberately refrained from naming my favorite
> language for
> fearr of the sneers.

I just took it as an eyample, having been *my* long-time favorite language
(after BASIC).


> > Guess what: You can still get dip pens *today* if you really want one.
> I know. I wonder if one still get a "Rapideograph" type pen and ink that
> would work in it.

Though Wikipedia states Rotring stopped shipping to the US in 2005, they're
still active on the European market - and yes, they still do manufacture the
"Rapidograph" series of pens:

http://www.rotring.com/en/produkte/technisches_zeichnen/rapidograph.html

;)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
  I'll count on you reading that pov4 newsgroup though; have you managed 
to access
> the earlier posts yet? If your newsreader still doesn't give you those, you may
> try via the http://news.povray.org web interface to get an overview of what's
> been discussed so far.
> 
> 
I've looked at some of the threads in the POV4 via the web. If I try to 
post from there,
it asks for a password, which I probably entered some months ago and 
have forgotten;
but I'm not quite ready to say anything yet, anyway. TBird must have a 
cutoff date set
somewhere but I've been unable to find it.

David

Post a reply to this message

On 07/26/09 14:26, David H. Burns wrote:
>> You love Pascal...
> Did I say I loved Pascal? I once learned it well enough to a fairly long
> (for me)
> program in it. I have deliberately refrained from naming my favorite
> language for
> fearr of the sneers.

	BASIC? Not my favorite, but I have fond memories of it.

	Can't imagine anything people would be more scared to admit to. LOGO is 
considered more respectable, and too many people like Fortran.


-- 
Free advice is seldom cheap.

Post a reply to this message