 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] cherokeetel net> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Yes, modules occasionally *are* instantiated and referenced; but in typical
> modular projects they're *not*, and instead just resemble code libraries.
What makes you think that on typical modular projects modules are not
instantiated?
A string is a module (or can be one in most modular and OO languages), for
example, and obviously you usually instantiate quite many times. Likewise
things like file streams are often modules/objects in such languages.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> I just took it as an eyample, having been *my* long-time favorite language
> (after BASIC).
Well, I guess I'll have to admit it BASIC is my favorite language.
QuickBasic was it's
highest development. Before it was abandoned and replaced by the Visual
Basics which
are different animals, although in the earlier versions you could
minimize the interface
development part and still do BASIC programming. That doesn't seem to be
the case with
the .net versions. I bought the first version years ago and then bought
a book. The recent posts
on the Microsoft-Arrgh thread reminded me of the problems with it'a
installation. Four plus
hours and the creation 50,000 or more new files.I'm not sure that I
every got to the point where
I could print "hi there". I was able to display an image and VBnet
seemed to promise good image
handling capabilities if one could only figure them out. It wouldn't
install one my new computer a
number of years ago (by that time, it was several versions old). I
downloaded the free 2008 version a
while back and it was even more obscure to me than the first version. I
did manage to print "Hi there" to
a textbox and to display an image, but I never figured out how to write
or import any code. The learning curve
for it would be so steep and long that I had rather do without or find
something else. The only working
programming tool I have at present, if we discount the Pov-Ray SDL is
VB4. Or I should say, the only one I
can use with any efficiency. I have a couple of versions of Python which
I may eventually learn to play
with and "Borland's" free C/C++ compiler that I might use some if I
could figure out how to do graphics
with it. How I do run on! :)
> 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
>
Thanks. I must use Wikipedia more.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> BASIC? Not my favorite, but I have fond memories of it.
>
> Can't imagine anything people would be more scared to admit to.
You are right on both counts. BASIC was (and I guess still is) despised
by the "real programmers"
as not being a *real* programming language.
The fact is (that is to say, "my opinion is") that those who talked that
way rightly perceived it as a
threat to their elite status and so its development was squelched. The
VB's are different animals.
Well enough of that. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
