 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/25/2010 05:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
>
> He missed "Pseudocode", which I'd write as:
>
> Coding in pseudocode is like a metaphor.
I like it! (although given your sentence construction shouldn't that be
"simile", or alternatively "Coding in pseudocode is a metaphor"?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> How have you liked C# so far?
I do. I've been using it on and off from early on.
> I last tried it when it was a pretty new
> language and it came across as a slightly altered version of Java,
Well, at first glance it looks like that, but deeper in it has a whole lot
of good stuff Java doesn't. Until you start going into complex stuff, it's
just "Java, fixed." Once you start trying to do something difficult (like
access to native languages, deployment, web scripts, generating code at
run-time, etc) it's way better.
> imagine it's changed a fair bit since then.
Indeed it has. C# 1.0 was sort of "Java, improved." C# 3.x by now has all
kinds of goodies in it that Java lacks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But is that kind of message the rule or the exception?
The error messages are all good, but I usually don't get an error at compile
time because the IDE puts a red squiggly under compile-time errors and a
green or blue squiggly for warnings, as you type. The IDE is really an order
of magnitude better than anything else I've ever used.
That was just surprising, because MS anticipated that someone would do that
and special-cased the parser just to handle a common error message.
> And it's not like gcc didn't have similar-sounding error messages:
> error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'x' with no type
I've gotten a few of those and not understood them, actually. I don't
remember what I had, but having something more along the lines of "you
forgot an #include" would be a better error message, I think. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:15:40 -0800, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 02/25/2010 05:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
>>
>> He missed "Pseudocode", which I'd write as:
>>
>> Coding in pseudocode is like a metaphor.
>
> I like it! (although given your sentence construction shouldn't that be
> "simile", or alternatively "Coding in pseudocode is a metaphor"?)
Technically, I guess "simile" would be correct there - I always get the
two mixed up. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:15:40 -0800, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
>> On 02/25/2010 05:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
>>> He missed "Pseudocode", which I'd write as:
>>>
>>> Coding in pseudocode is like a metaphor.
>> I like it! (although given your sentence construction shouldn't that be
>> "simile", or alternatively "Coding in pseudocode is a metaphor"?)
>
> Technically, I guess "simile" would be correct there - I always get the
> two mixed up. :-)
At least I have something to show for all the effort my teachers spent
hammering the difference into my head!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> How have you liked C# so far?
>
> I do. I've been using it on and off from early on.
>
>> I last tried it when it was a pretty new language and it came across
>> as a slightly altered version of Java,
>
> Well, at first glance it looks like that, but deeper in it has a whole
> lot of good stuff Java doesn't. Until you start going into complex
> stuff, it's just "Java, fixed." Once you start trying to do something
> difficult (like access to native languages, deployment, web scripts,
> generating code at run-time, etc) it's way better.
Makes sense. I think the runtime code generation was what I was
particularly interested in, and I'm pretty sure it didn't have much in
the way of that when I last looked at it. Now that I have Visual Studio
maybe I'll take a look at it again sometime.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Coding in Haskell is like having sex with a girl
that wears horn rimmed glasses, you'll never quite
understand her, but it's a lot of fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> Coding in Haskell is like having sex with a girl
> that wears horn rimmed glasses, you'll never quite
> understand her, but it's a lot of fun.
Dude, what the HELL...?? o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> One of the better ones I've seen.
>
> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
The one for C++ seems about right. All the others don't match my
experience at all. (E.g., since when does Java "always get the job done
eventually"? I've lost count of the number of programs I was unable to
finish because Java just makes it too difficult, lacks the necessary
feature, or the spec sheet says the feature exists but it's not actually
implemented!)
I'd say that Perl is like a tool that somebody wrote to solve the one
particular problem they were trying to solve that day, and then tried to
claim it was a general-purpose tool. It makes a small class of problems
really easy to solve, and everything else almost impossible. The whole
thing seems to be a steaming pile of ad hoc solutions with no unifying
form or structure. Kind of like learning English, but harder.
I'm not familiar with Ruby, Scheme, or Mozart. Of course I've heard of
all these things, but I don't know anything about them. (I started
reading a Ruby tutorial, but the random inconsistant syntax put me off.
And the ham.)
So anyway, since I'm sure you're all expecting it anyway... I'd say that
coding in Haskell is like doing highschool algebra. (In more ways than
one.) At first it seems weird and complicated. And then, assuming you
"get it", it suddenly seems really simple and easy and "obvious". And
then as you try to tackle harder problems, it starts seeming difficult
again...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's funny how everybody keeps repeating the same mantras about C++,
> yet I don't experience them myself. It must be a different C++.
It seems to me that C++ is a language designed for experts. If you're a
C++ expert, it works very well. If you're a clueless newbie, it works...
not so well.
Still, at least it's better than C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
