>> It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.
> Hey, don't start with the Pascal bashing.

I was actually saying Pascal was better than FORTRAN, and perhaps a
suitable candidate. Hardly a bash (unless you consider being in the
same sentence as "FORTRAN" to be a bash). :)
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:07:21 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>What a lot of
>>>people don't seem to understand is that you can create object oriented
>>>code in standard 'C' without having to resort of C++...
>
>
> Yah...but...
>
> C++ is just a bunch of object oriented libraries written in straight
> C. C++ just saves us the time of having to write all that code. It's
> also why compiling 37K of source code may give you a 30 Meg EXE. <:-))

Yes, I'd forgot about that. I remember when I was learning C++ and
compiled the ubiquitous Hello World program. The executable was
multiple MB in size compared to a few K for Fortran 77. :-)

I ended up deciding it was easier to leave programming for management
than to learn a language as messed up as C++. It was bad enough
learning C after having used Pascal and VAX Fortran, but C++ was just
too bizarre.

Matt

Roger wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:52:21 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:21:33 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
>>>>>true for HTML and the web.
>>>>
>>>>Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good... Of
>>>>course, it doesn't have the character of APL... <evil-grin>
>>>
>>>
>>>Doesn't have pointers or linked lists either. <:-))
>>>The two most difficult were data base design and working out well
>>>beyond any useful "normal form" and compiler design in straight C
>>>before ANSI C when it did little if any type checking and made the
>>>assumption the programmer knew what he, or she was doing. It'd
>>>basically let you do most any thing with, or to anything.
>>
>>Sure it does. You just haven't looked at FORTRAN lately... :-)
>
>
> You mean there's something newer than Fortran 77? <:-))

I hear rumors to that effect! :-)

Matt

Jose wrote:

>>> It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.
>>
>> Hey, don't start with the Pascal bashing.
>
>
> I was actually saying Pascal was better than FORTRAN, and perhaps a
> suitable candidate. Hardly a bash (unless you consider being in the
> same sentence as "FORTRAN" to be a bash). :)

I really liked Pascal, very simply and elegant. However, it did have
some major handicaps as compared to Fortran once you got beyond
educational-level programs. The major handicap was its IO capability.
Fortran excelled there and Pascal was weak.


Matt

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:25:09 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> Anything is better than HTML. Of course "better" depends on the use to
> which it is put, and HTML is not really being put to the uses it was
> intended for. Not being an expert in the internet, I don't have much to
> offer as an improvement, but I know a kludge when I see it.

HTML for web pages is a "What You See Is What You *Might* Get" type of
system... For static page markup, it was acceptable, but people kept
trying to beat it into something that it wasn't...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:49:16 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> I was expecting that. C has held back software development more than
> any other language invented. C is what assembly should have been, but
> it certainly sucks as a "high level" language.

If you do it right, 'C' can be object oriented... It might not have
all the features of C++, but one could argue that quite a few of the
C++ features are either not needed or rarely used... I like a lot of
the features in C++, but more often than not, I end up writing
straight 'C' since at least one of the machines upon which my system
is executing does not have a C++ compiler...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:04:02 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.

Gag me with a TK50 !!!

I've done Ada for NASA many years ago and even they eventually saw the
error in their ways and and went back to 'C'... Pascal is not even a
contender... Modula-II is quite a bit better than Pascal, but I'll
stay with C/C++ anyday...

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:01:15 -0400, Roger >
wrote:
> C++ is just a bunch of object oriented libraries written in straight
> C. C++ just saves us the time of having to write all that code. It's
> also why compiling 37K of source code may give you a 30 Meg EXE. <:-))

That would be if you were linking in the MS libraries... If you write
the C++ from scratch on a UNIX machine and are not linking in any
humongous libraries for a user interface, it won't be that much larger
than an executable written in straight 'C'... MFC applications can get
a bit large... Not usually 30M, but yeah, they are a bit bloated...

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:28 -0400, Roger >
wrote:
> You mean there's something newer than Fortran 77? <:-))

I started with FORTRAN-IV... '77 was something that we could only
dream about... <grin>

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:34:57 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> I ended up deciding it was easier to leave programming for management
> than to learn a language as messed up as C++.

Those who CAN, DO... Those who CAN'T, go to management... <grin>

> It was bad enough learning C after having used Pascal
> and VAX Fortran, but C++ was just too bizarre.

C++ was originally just a translator that translated the C++ code into
'C' code for compilation by the normal 'C' compiler... Eventually,
they created an actual C++ compiler though... If you look at the C++
syntax and just try to figure out what it would take to implement that
in 'C', it starts making a bit more sense... Quite frankly though, I
don't use all the features in the language... I just haven't had the
need to use them in all the years that I've been programming in it...

> For static page markup, [HTML] was acceptable, but people kept
> trying to beat it into something that it wasn't...

Yep. But the kludge works "well enough", so HTML is not being replaced.

Interestingly, web based "news readers" are becoming popular
replacements for real news clients, but RSS feeds (the "new thing") are
becoming popular too. If RSS had come first, even odds there would be
web based audio feeds that would be replacing the "old fashioned" RSS stuff.

> Gag me with a TK50 !!!

Ok. (I've never done Pascal so I really have no opinion on it).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:35:03 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> Yep. But the kludge works "well enough", so HTML is not being replaced.

And for static web pages, it's acceptable... Dynamic web pages (i.e.
web applications) on the other hand are definitely a kludge... The
concept of having server side and client side code in the same file is
ugly from a design standpoint... I've written web apps before
utilizing Javascript, ASPs, and database access, so I do know
*something* about it and my informed opinion is that it is an ugly
design... Hell, it makes the old spaghetti code FORTRAN even look
good... In some ways, HTML is a progression from the old nroff and
troff text formatting... When they started trying to make it into
something that you could 'program' with is where they made their
mistake... On the other hand, Postscript is a real programming
language... A bit odd and more difficult to understand that your
typical Algol derived procedure oriented language, but a true
programming language none the less... Kind of like LISP, but
*different*... <grin>

> Interestingly, web based "news readers" are becoming popular
> replacements for real news clients, but RSS feeds (the "new thing") are
> becoming popular too. If RSS had come first, even odds there would be
> web based audio feeds that would be replacing the "old fashioned" RSS
> stuff.

Depends upon what you are calling "news readers"... Do you mean "news"
as in USENET or "news" as in current events? RSS from what I
understand is the latter... I have never read anything about it doing
USENET... With respect to "news" as in current events, I don't have a
problem with it being in standard HTML since the end result is that
I'm using the computer as a replacment for some printed media...
Allowing the source of the information to have control over the actual
formatting / display of the information is not really objectionable to
me...

> Ok. (I've never done Pascal so I really have no opinion on it).

It's better than BASIC, but that's about it... Personally, I don't
like a language that is too strongly typed... I like the capability of
being able to refer to a particular area of memory by various types...
I like the fact that with 'C', I will know exactly how my data is laid
out in memory... One thing that I used to tell students who were
considering taking a 'C' course was that if they couldn't handle
pointers, they should stay away from 'C'... 'C' does not just allow
you to shoot yourself in the foot... It provides you with a fully
automatic 12-gauge, rests the end of the barrel on your foot, and only
allows you to pick it up by the trigger which just so happens to have
a 1 gram trigger pull... It's difficult to find a language that is
more efficient yet still allows you high level language structures...

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:

> I've done Ada for NASA many years ago and even they eventually saw the
> error in their ways and and went back to 'C'... Pascal is not even a
> contender... Modula-II is quite a bit better than Pascal, but I'll
> stay with C/C++ anyday...

yeah - C is a wonderful programming language for critical software.

not.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> And for static web pages, it's acceptable.

Alas, there are precious few static web pages nowadays - it seems people
want to show off how cool they are by stuffing the pipe. I've seen
flash used to encapsulate a static image which held nothing but text. Feh.

> Depends upon what you are calling "news readers"...
> Do you mean "news" as in USENET...?

Yes. Those kinds of readers are specially designed for message boards.

RSS is similar in that it is especially designed for media (podcasting
and the like). Whatever came last squeezes out whatever came first,
irrespective of quality or appropriateness. So, HTML squoze
newsreaders, and RSS is squeezing HTML (et al).

> Allowing the source of the information to have control over the actual
> formatting / display of the information is not really objectionable to
> me...

It's very objectionable to me, since it ignores the capabilities (or
lack of them) and permissions (or lack of them) of the device upon which
the information is to be displayed, and the wishes of the one who will
actually use the information.

> and only allows you to pick it up by the trigger

LOL!

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:34:57 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>>I ended up deciding it was easier to leave programming for management
>>than to learn a language as messed up as C++.
>
>
> Those who CAN, DO... Those who CAN'T, go to management... <grin>

.... and make twice as much money. <big grin>

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Grumman-581 > wrote:
>
>
>>I've done Ada for NASA many years ago and even they eventually saw the
>>error in their ways and and went back to 'C'... Pascal is not even a
>>contender... Modula-II is quite a bit better than Pascal, but I'll
>>stay with C/C++ anyday...
>
>
> yeah - C is a wonderful programming language for critical software.

You have me worried...

> not.

Oh, much better now.

Yes, C is great for those who don't much care about the quality of their
software, which, unfortunately, is the preponderance of programmers.

Matt

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:49:16 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>>I was expecting that. C has held back software development more than
>>any other language invented. C is what assembly should have been, but
>>it certainly sucks as a "high level" language.
>
>
> If you do it right, 'C' can be object oriented... It might not have
> all the features of C++, but one could argue that quite a few of the
> C++ features are either not needed or rarely used... I like a lot of
> the features in C++, but more often than not, I end up writing
> straight 'C' since at least one of the machines upon which my system
> is executing does not have a C++ compiler...

Object-oriented is passe now. Try to keep up! :-)

Matt

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:25:09 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>Anything is better than HTML. Of course "better" depends on the use to
>>which it is put, and HTML is not really being put to the uses it was
>>intended for. Not being an expert in the internet, I don't have much to
>>offer as an improvement, but I know a kludge when I see it.
>
>
> HTML for web pages is a "What You See Is What You *Might* Get" type of
> system... For static page markup, it was acceptable, but people kept
> trying to beat it into something that it wasn't...

Yes, just like with C. It was intended as a system-level language that
was easier to use than assembly language. And then people started using
it for application level software and things went to heck in a handbasket.

Matt

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:04:02 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>> It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.
>
> Gag me with a TK50 !!!
>
> I've done Ada for NASA many years ago and even they eventually saw the
> error in their ways and and went back to 'C'... Pascal is not even a
> contender... Modula-II is quite a bit better than Pascal, but I'll
> stay with C/C++ anyday...

(My last programming was 1990-1...and that was just to get some elaborate
weight shift calculations done, Borland's Turbo C. I even keep some of the
other stuff)

__ _ /|
\'o.O '
=(___)=

U Ack! Phfft!

Real Programmers...

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They like twinkies, coke and
palate-scorching Szechwan food.
Real Programmers don't write applications programs. They program
right down on the bare metal. Applications programming is for the
dullards who can't do systems programming.
Real Programmers don't write specs. Users should be grateful for
whatever they get: they are lucky to get any programs at all.
Real Programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write,
it should be hard to understand and harder to modify.
Real Programmers don't document. Documentation is for simpletons
who can't read listings or the object code from the dump.
Real Programmers don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are the illiterate's
form of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look at how much
good it did for them.
Real Programmers don't read manuals. Reliance on a reference manual
is the hallmark of the novice and the coward.
Real Programmers don't write in RPG. RPG is for gum-chewing dimwits
who maintain ancient payroll programs.
Real Programmers don't write in COBOL. COBOL is for COmmon Business-
Oriented Laymen who can't run a business, much less write a real
program.
Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers
who wear white socks. They get excited over finite state analysis and
nuclear reactor simulation.
Real Programmers don't write in PL/1. PL/1 is for insecure anal-retentives
who can't choose between COBOL and FORTRAN.
Real Programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmer writes
in BASIC after reaching puberty.
Real Programmers don't write in APL, unless the whole program can be
written on one line.
Real Programmers don't write in LISP. Only idiots' programs contain
more parenthesis than actual code.
Real Programmers don't write in PASCAL, BLISS, ADA, or any of those
other sissy computer science languages. Strong typing is the crutch
for people with weak minds.
Real Programmers' programs never work right the first time. But if you
throw them on the machine they can be patched into working order in
"only a few" 30-hour debugging sessions.
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any Real Programmers are around
at 9:00 am, its because they were up all night.
Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport which requires
a change of clothes. Mountain Climbing is acceptable.
Real Programmers wear climbing boots to work in case a mountain should
suddenly spring up in the middle of the machine room.
Real Programmers disdain structured programming. Structured programming
is for compulsive neurotics who were permanently toilet trained. They
wear neckties and carefully line up sharp pencils on an otherwise clear
desk.
Real Programmers don't like the team programming concept. Unless, of
course they are the chief programmer.
Real Programmers never write memos on paper. They send memos via computer
mail networks.
Real Programmers have no use for managers. Managers are a necessary evil.
They exist only to deal with personnel bozos, bean counters, senior
planners,
and other mental defectives.
Real Programmers scorn floating point arithmetic. The decimal point was
invented for pansy bedwetters who are unable to "think big."
Real Programmers don't drive clapped-out Mavericks. They prefer BMW's,
Porsches, or pick up trucks with floor shifts. Fast motorcycles are highly
regarded.
Real Programmers don't believe in schedules. Planners make up schedules.
Managers "firm up" schedules. Frightened coders strive to meet schedules.
Real Programmers ignore schedules.

> Yes, C is great for those who don't much care about the quality of their software, which, unfortunately, is the preponderance of programmers.

C is great for those who care a lot about the quality of their own work,
and therefore don't rely on the language to catch them.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

>> Yes, C is great for those who don't much care about the quality of
>> their software, which, unfortunately, is the preponderance of
>> programmers.
>
>
> C is great for those who care a lot about the quality of their own work,
> and therefore don't rely on the language to catch them.

Wow, I've never heard that excuse before ... not. Any skilled
tradesperson or professional will use better tools when they are
available. Programmers are one of the few professions that don't. I
honestly have tried to figure this out, as have many others, but I'm
still stumped.

Matt

> Any skilled tradesperson or professional will use better tools when they are available. Programmers are one of the few professions that don't.

Maybe it's because programmers think they know what they're doing, and
like the flexibility of a language that lets them discover the lie
themselves.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> Any skilled tradesperson or professional will use better tools when
>> they are available. Programmers are one of the few professions that
>> don't.
>
>
> Maybe it's because programmers think they know what they're doing, and
> like the flexibility of a language that lets them discover the lie
> themselves.

That's as good a theory as any I've heard. I'm constantly amazed when I
hear (still!) about security breaches and other errors caused by
overruning of array boundaries and similar errors that were eliminated
20+ years ago in many languages yet which soldier on in C. Yes, I'm
aware of tools like Lint and such made to combat this, but many folks
still don't use such tools.


Matt

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> And something better would be? would have been?
>
> C is better than FORTRAN. Maybe something like C would have been
> developed sooner if FORTRAN compilers didn't get so good.
>
> Anything is better than HTML. Of course "better" depends on the use to
> which it is put, and HTML is not really being put to the uses it was
> intended for. Not being an expert in the internet, I don't have much to
> offer as an improvement, but I know a kludge when I see it.
>
> Jose

I'm not an internet expert either but everybody knows that the downfall of
HTML was the creation of the [Flash] tag.

In a previous article, Matt Whiting > said:
>Jose wrote:
>> C is great for those who care a lot about the quality of their own work,
>> and therefore don't rely on the language to catch them.
>
>Wow, I've never heard that excuse before ... not. Any skilled
>tradesperson or professional will use better tools when they are
>available. Programmers are one of the few professions that don't. I
>honestly have tried to figure this out, as have many others, but I'm
>still stumped.

You know who else are stumped? Carpenters who wanted to catch their own
mistakes rather than having safety guards on their saws.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Every computer crashes, because every OS sucks"
- Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie, "Every OS Sucks" http://www.deadtroll.com/

Matt Whiting > wrote:
>Jose wrote:
>
>>> Yes, C is great for those who don't much care about the quality of
>>> their software, which, unfortunately, is the preponderance of
>>> programmers.
>>
>>
>> C is great for those who care a lot about the quality of their own work,
>> and therefore don't rely on the language to catch them.
>
>Wow, I've never heard that excuse before ... not. Any skilled
>tradesperson or professional will use better tools when they are
>available. Programmers are one of the few professions that don't. I
>honestly have tried to figure this out, as have many others, but I'm
>still stumped.

C/C++ is the NDB of the programming world.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:24:19 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:
> yeah - C is a wonderful programming language for critical software.
>
> not.

Well, it requires the developer to be competent... I don't necessarily
think that this is a *bad* thing... There is too many
fill-in-the-blank 'programmers' out there today... They can draw the
pretty little user interfaces and fill in the code behind the
callbacks from the buttons and such, but they're not *real*
programmers...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:34:35 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:
> Real Programmers...
<snip>

Yep, that one has been around for a *long* time in various flavors...

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/real-programmers

Of course, it's true...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:38:56 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> C is great for those who care a lot about the quality of their own work,
> and therefore don't rely on the language to catch them.

Correct... 'C' is all about personal responsibility... A trait sadly
lacking in many people these days...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:26:58 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> I'm not an internet expert either but everybody knows that the downfall of
> HTML was the creation of the [Flash] tag.

The Navy does not allow Flash on any of the machines on their networks
due to security concerns... I don't allow it on any of my machines
either... If a company has a site that requires flash, I send them an
email voicing my concerns and thanking them for the priviledge of
being allowed to do business with their non-Flash enabled
competitors...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:11:57 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith)
wrote:
> C/C++ is the NDB of the programming world.

Spoken like someone who can't handle pointers...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:30:27 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> ... and make twice as much money. <big grin>

Sometimes, but not always... I'm fairly certain that for at least the
last 10-12 years, I've made more than my direct managers... Not sure
about the 2nd layer of management, but I suspect that the 3rd layer
(CIO) definitely made more than I did...

Personally though, I don't like management duties... I much prefer the
actual satisfaction of designing and creating a system...

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:26:58 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> I'm not an internet expert either but everybody knows that the downfall
>> of
>> HTML was the creation of the [Flash] tag.
>
> The Navy does not allow Flash on any of the machines on their networks
> due to security concerns... I don't allow it on any of my machines
> either... If a company has a site that requires flash, I send them an
> email voicing my concerns and thanking them for the priviledge of
> being allowed to do business with their non-Flash enabled
> competitors...

Well hell, I screwed up my own joke. I meant to type [Blink]

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:26:58 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> > I'm not an internet expert either but everybody knows that the downfall of
> > HTML was the creation of the [Flash] tag.
>
> The Navy does not allow Flash on any of the machines on their networks
> due to security concerns... I don't allow it on any of my machines
> either... If a company has a site that requires flash, I send them an
> email voicing my concerns and thanking them for the priviledge of
> being allowed to do business with their non-Flash enabled
> competitors...

So why are you guys not even mentioning the Javascript exploits?

> The Navy does not allow Flash...

I think the poster meant the [blink] tag. That was the beginning of the
end. Macromedia Flash is the end of the end.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-08-26, Roger > wrote:
> Let's see...If I can stick around to help out at 2038, at 108 I'd be
> the world's oldest programmer in addition to the World's oldest
> Debonair pilot.

So long as I've not succumbed to an untimely end, I will more than
probably still be in the workforce come the 2038 problem... :/

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-08-27, Emily > wrote:
> Oh, but it's so much fun to watch people's faces when I tell them I know
> FORTRAN.

Not as good as when you tell them you know INTERCAL...

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:44:12 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
> Not as good as when you tell them you know INTERCAL...

Proof that the drug induced era of the '60s were still aflicting minds
in early '70s... One would think that APL would have been strange
enough for 'em...

Roy Smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Jose wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Yes, C is great for those who don't much care about the quality of
>>>>their software, which, unfortunately, is the preponderance of
>>>>programmers.
>>>
>>>
>>>C is great for those who care a lot about the quality of their own work,
>>>and therefore don't rely on the language to catch them.
>>
>>Wow, I've never heard that excuse before ... not. Any skilled
>>tradesperson or professional will use better tools when they are
>>available. Programmers are one of the few professions that don't. I
>>honestly have tried to figure this out, as have many others, but I'm
>>still stumped.
>
>
> C/C++ is the NDB of the programming world.

Good one, Roy, and brought it back on topic in the process! :-)
Although, I think it is more like the old four course range. NDB is
probably closer to Fortran. Pascal, and the rest of the Algol family
(and I include Ada here) is probably in the VOR/DME category. I'm not
sure what fits GPS, but maybe model-based development once it matures a
little more. To keep going, I guess assembly would be close to dead
reckoning... :-)

Matt

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:11:57 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith)
> wrote:
>
>>C/C++ is the NDB of the programming world.
>
>
> Spoken like someone who can't handle pointers...

Oh, that was bad.... :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I'm not sure what fits GPS

Python.

Roy Smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what fits GPS
>
>
> Python.

I'm not familiar with Python.

Matt

("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
> You know who else are stumped? Carpenters who wanted to catch their own
> mistakes rather than having safety guards on their saws.


<g>


Montblack

On 2006-08-28, Roger > wrote:
> C. C++ just saves us the time of having to write all that code. It's
> also why compiling 37K of source code may give you a 30 Meg EXE. <:-))

Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world of
software design, how does it feel, looking back?

Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before you
arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' and, the trouble
was, they were pretty damn good at it.. Universities got pretty good at
teaching it, too. They were turning out competent - I stress the word
'competent' graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the
problem.

Interviewer: Problem?

Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol?

Interviewer: Of course, I did too

Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods.
Their salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.

Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?

Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and invested
millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.

Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to
the point where being a journalist actually paid better.

Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.

Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?

Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought
of this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I
thought 'I wonder what would happen, if there were a language so
complicated, so difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to
swamp the market with programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas
from X10, you know, X windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics
system, that it only just ran on those Sun 3/60 things.. They had all
the ingredients for what I wanted. A really ridiculously complex
syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO structure. Even now, nobody
writes raw X-windows code. Motif is the only way to go if you want to
retain your sanity.

Interviewer: You're kidding...?

Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem.. Unix
was written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very
easily become a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems
programmer used to earn?

Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.

Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix,
by hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely.
This would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living
too.

Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...

Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people
have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must
say, it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.

Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?

Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people
would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that
object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and
inefficient.

Interviewer: What?

Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a
company re-using its code?

Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...

Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early
days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were
called - really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in C++ in
about '90 or '91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought people
would learn from their mistakes.

Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?

Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up
all their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the
shareholders would have been difficult.. Give them their due, though,
they made it work in the end.

Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works.

Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five
minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran
like treacle. Actually, I thought this would be a major
stumbling-block, and I'd get found out within a week, but nobody cared.
Sun and HP were only too glad to sell enormously powerful boxes, with
huge resources just to run trivial programs. You know, when we had our
first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello World', and couldn't
believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB.

Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.

Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you won't
get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there are several quite
recent examples for you, from all over the world. British Telecom had a
major disaster on their hands but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole
thing and start again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now
I hear that Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more and more
worried as the size of the hardware gets bigger, to accommodate the
executables. Isn't multiple inheritance a joy?

Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.

Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever sat down
and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens: First, I've put in
enough pitfalls to make sure that only the most trivial projects will
work first time. Take operator overloading. At the end of the project,
almost every module has it, usually, because guys feel they really
should do it, as it was in their training course. The same operator then
means something totally different in every module. Try pulling that lot
together, when you have a hundred or so modules. And as for data hiding.
God, I sometimes can't help laughing when I hear about the problems
companies have making their modules talk to each other. I think the word
'synergistic' was specially invented to twist the knife in a project
manager's ribs.

Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at all
this. You say you did it to raise programmers' salaries? That's
obscene.

Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect the
thing to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically succeeded. C++ is
dying off now, but programmers still get high salaries - especially
those poor devils who have to maintain all this crap. You do realise,
it's impossible to maintain a large C++ software module if you
didn't actually write it?

Interviewer: How come?

Stroustrup: You are out of touch, aren't you? Remember the typedef?

Interviewer: Yes, of course.

Stroustrup: Remember how long it took to grope through the header files
only to find that 'RoofRaised' was a double precision number? Well,
imagine how long it takes to find all the implicit typedefs in all the
Classes in a major project.

Interviewer: So how do you reckon you've succeeded?

Stroustrup: Remember the length of the average-sized 'C' project? About
6 months. Not nearly long enough for a guy with a wife and kids to earn
enough to have a decent standard of living. Take the same project,
design it in C++ and what do you get? I'll tell you. One to two years.
Isn't that great? All that job security, just through one mistake
of judgement. And another thing. The universities haven't been teaching
'C' for such a long time, there's now a shortage of decent 'C'
programmers. Especially those who know anything about Unix systems
programming. How many guys would know what to do with 'malloc', when
they've used 'new' all these years - and never bothered to check the
return code. In fact, most C++ programmers throw away their return
codes. Whatever happened to good ol' '-1'? At least you knew you had an
error, without bogging the thing down in all that 'throw' 'catch' 'try'
stuff.

Interviewer: But, surely, inheritance does save a lot of time?

Stroustrup: Does it? Have you ever noticed the difference between a 'C'
project plan, and a C++ project plan? The planning stage for a C++
project is three times as long. Precisely to make sure that everything
which should be inherited is, and what shouldn't isn't. Then, they still
get it wrong. Whoever heard of memory leaks in a 'C' program? Now
finding them is a major industry. Most companies give up, and send the
product out, knowing it leaks like a sieve, simply to avoid the expense
of tracking them all down.

Interviewer: There are tools...

Stroustrup: Most of which were written in C++.

Interviewer: If we publish this, you'll probably get lynched, you do
realise that?

Stroustrup: I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now, and no
company in its right mind would start a C++ project without a pilot
trial. That should convince them that it's the road to disaster. If not,
they deserve all they get. You know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie
to rewrite Unix in C++..

Interviewer: Oh my God. What did he say?

Stroustrup: Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think both
he and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early days, but never
let on. He said he'd help me write a C++ version of DOS, if I was
interested.

Interviewer: Were you?

Stroustrup: Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I'll give you a demo when
we're through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the computer room.
Goes like a rocket on 4 CPU's, and only takes up 70 megs of disk.

Interviewer: What's it like on a PC?

Stroustrup: Now you're kidding. Haven't you ever seen Windows '95? I
think of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game before I was
ready, though.

Interviewer: You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me
thinking. Somewhere out there, there's a guy going to try it.

Stroustrup: Not after they read this interview.

Interviewer: I'm sorry, but I don't see us being able to publish any of
this.

Stroustrup: But it's the story of the century. I only want to be
remembered by my fellow programmers, for what I've done for them. You
know how much a C++ guy can get these days?

Interviewer: Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70 - $80 an hour.

Stroustrup: See? And I bet he earns it. Keeping track of all the
gotchas I put into C++ is no easy job. And, as I said before, every C++
programmer feels bound by some mystic promise to use every damn element
of the language on every project. Actually, that really annoys me
sometimes, even though it serves my original purpose. I almost like the
language after all this time.

Interviewer: You mean you didn't before?

Stroustrup: Hated it. It even looks clumsy, don't you agree? But when
the book royalties started to come in... well, you get the picture.

Interviewer: Just a minute. What about references? You must admit, you
improved on 'C' pointers.

Stroustrup: Hmm. I've always wondered about that. Originally, I thought
I had. Then, one day I was discussing this with a guy who'd written C++
from the beginning. He said he could never remember whether his
variables were referenced or dereferenced, so he always used pointers.
He said the little asterisk always reminded him.

Interviewer: Well, at this point, I usually say 'thank you very much'
but it hardly seems adequate.

Stroustrup: Promise me you'll publish this. My conscience is getting
the better of me these days.

Interviewer: I'll let you know, but I think I know what my editor will
say.

Stroustrup: Who'd believe it anyway? Although, can you send me a copy
of that tape?

Interviewer: I can do that.

End of interview




Yes, it's a hoax. But I've worked on a 2+ MLOC C++ project and it cust
*awfully* close to the truth.
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:26:38 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith)
wrote:
> Python.

I believe that Python is only an interpreted language... The only
interpreted language that I ever really liked was APL... It had enough
interesting features that having it as an interpreter was
acceptable... Of course, I've known programmers who said that you
weren't a REAL PROGRAMMER unless you programmed in JOVIAL... Of
course, at the time, they had lost their JOVIAL programming job
because the DoD had cancelled that project and were now at NASA
programming in 'C'...

On 2006-08-27, Jose > wrote:
> ubiquitousness made it very vulnerable (you can go to anywhere - there
> is no "come from" statement).

There is in INTERCAL, I think :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-08-27, Grumman-581 > wrote:
> HTML was OK as it was originally designed -- as a markup mechanism for
> text... What we've done with it since is ridiculous... Personally, I
> would have preferred to have seen X-Windows or even DisplayPostScript
> adopted, but oh well, such is life... A better technical solution is
> not always the one that gets selected...

Sometimes, a god-awful "solution" (more of a precipitate, me thinks)
gets selected. AJAX is an _abortion_ - it really does feel like trying
to tighten phillips screws with the tip of a steak knife. AJAX may be
the buzzword du jour but it's _nasty_. Trying to draw interfaces in
HTML...ugh. Not to mention the typical AJAX user interface makes a ZX
Spectrum look lightning fast.

SOAP is another. Have you ever looked at a SOAP call with a web analyzer
and seen what crap has to go over the wire just to return a boolean
value? XML should absolutely never be used for RPC calls. What were they
thinking? That's not to mention the layers of crap each call has to go
through to actually get to the code its supposed to run. Then look at
the insanity that's a WSDL file.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

> Good one, Roy, and brought it back on topic in the process!

Oh buggers, now Grumman is going to get mad! <g>

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-08-28, Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> In a previous article, Matt Whiting > said:
>>Wow, I've never heard that excuse before ... not. Any skilled
>>tradesperson or professional will use better tools when they are
>>available. Programmers are one of the few professions that don't. I
>>honestly have tried to figure this out, as have many others, but I'm
>>still stumped.
>
> You know who else are stumped? Carpenters who wanted to catch their own
> mistakes rather than having safety guards on their saws.

Sometimes, C or C++ is the right tool for the job.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone should write C professionally
until they've used asm in anger (any asm, it doesn't matter which). When
you've written an asm program, and see some buffer run off the end and
over your stack, you understand on a visceral level why you should check
buffers. Those developers who've only ever used a compiler may not be
aware of how things might get arranged in memory, and might believe that
a buffer overflow will just cause a crash. Those who have written stuff
in asm - any asm, even 8 bit stuff, will know that the RET instruction
gets the return address off the stack. They will therefore also know the
consequences of something smashing through the stack, and replacing the
word on the stack that contains the return address. They will know this
because to write anything non-trivial in asm, they will have had to have
thought about this kind of thing.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Jose wrote:
>> Good one, Roy, and brought it back on topic in the process!
>
>
> Oh buggers, now Grumman is going to get mad! <g>

Don't worry, his bark is worse than his bite. :-)

Matt

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:44f2fec9$0$10298$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

<Snipola>
> Real Programmers don't write in
<Snipola>

Hmmmm....I guess maybe I might be a real programmer then...

I write in XBasic (as in EX-basic) which isn't listed.

http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html
http://www.xbasic.org/

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:49:16 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Jose wrote:
>
>>> And something better would be? would have been?
>>
>>
>> C is better than FORTRAN. Maybe something like C would have been
>> developed sooner if FORTRAN compilers didn't get so good.
>
>I was expecting that. C has held back software development more than
>any other language invented. C is what assembly should have been, but
>it certainly sucks as a "high level" language.

As others have already said, C is not a high level language. It is
considered primitive from a level standpoint and only a few steps
above assembler, which is also what makes it so powerful.
C is sometimes described as a "write only" language.

Pascal is a high level language, but it was designed as a teaching
language, not the working language it turned into. Delphi really
gave Pascal some punch.

When I worked as a GA I saw some Pascal code written by beginners that
I could absolutely not follow, yet the stuff worked. I think about
2.3rds of the source code was camouflage.

Assembly language can be written using routines and functions. JSR and
return and conditional return statements in the middle of a routine do
not make spaghetti code, but lots of goto statements whether to a name
or line number do.



>
>Matt
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:02:39 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
> On the other hand, I don't think anyone should write C professionally
> until they've used asm in anger (any asm, it doesn't matter which).

Probably a good point... I've done my share of assembly language
programming and it was before learning 'C'... Maybe that's why
pointers in 'C' never really bothered me... It's good to know how the
code and data are going to be laid out in memory...

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:06:36 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> Don't worry, his bark is worse than his bite. :-)

Hey, I'm the most well adjusted psychotic sociopath that I know...

Skywise wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:44f2fec9$0$10298$815e3792
> @news.qwest.net:
>
> <Snipola>
>
>>Real Programmers don't write in
>
> <Snipola>
>
> Hmmmm....I guess maybe I might be a real programmer then...
>
> I write in XBasic (as in EX-basic) which isn't listed.
>
> http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html
> http://www.xbasic.org/
>
> Brian

I'm an ex-BASIC programmer also! HP BASIC to be specific.

Matt