|
True, the language itself is easier because it is only syntaxis.
The actual thing is to handle the framework, that's the engine that does all the work
Greetings,
Gary Wenneker
http://www.binario.nl
|
|
|
|
|
pvones wrote: I don't think that most of developers can effectively (!) work in more than one modern platform/language/framework at once due its complexity
Try telling that to recruiters though.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
pvones wrote: The language itself is not that important. You could easily switch between lets say C# and VB.NET because the 90% of knowledge you need to learn are the .NET Framework libraries and CLR essentials.
That is true if you are talking about very similar languages: VB/Java/C#. However, there are languages that are very different and require a shift in the way you think.
|
|
|
|
|
XSLT, for example, a fairly pure functional programming language. Good for some things, horrible if you try the wrong thing.
Henry in Ottawa
|
|
|
|
|
Henry Troup wrote: functional programming
Oh, that's what I've been doing for the last three hours?
|
|
|
|
|
Well since all our code ends as ASM (and binary) neither the shift in the way you think nor any particular syntax makes a big difference. This may change with bottom-up changes in principles of current technology.
if (xx + xy) % 2 return xy else return xx
|
|
|
|
|
Meh. It really depends a lot on what you're writing. If your code ends up being little more than glue between framework libraries, then yeah - you're gonna suffer trying to switch between (dissimilar) frameworks.
|
|
|
|
|
Well.... if your code doesn't take advantage of the framework libraries, you're writing too much and it's suboptimal.
I don't think I have "double brain capacity", but I can use Google and I can read English (and I have a multi-year O'Reilly habit I wrote tests in both C# and Java to get my current job; I scored slightly better in Java - so they gave me the C# job.
Henry in Ottawa
|
|
|
|
|
Henry Troup wrote: Well.... if your code doesn't take advantage of the framework libraries, you're writing too much and it's suboptimal.
There's a significant difference between taking advantage of libraries, and writing nothing but trivial calls into libraries...
|
|
|
|
|
That's certainly true; and there's a bit of art to it. If you organize your data so that you can call the framework's binary search, which is that?
Long ago, the claim was that 90% of most programs was input, output, and interface; these are the things we want to push down into frameworks, leaving the 10% that's actual logic and/or business rules as requiring real creative work. And, when frameworks provide decent rule engines, I'll use them, too.
The first "automatic programming" system was actually the first assembler. The generations of progress in software are mostly about doing less and less coding, of higher and higher value.
Henry in Ottawa
|
|
|
|
|
Henry Troup wrote: If you organize your data so that you can call the framework's binary search, which is that?
These days, i'd say it depends on if you chose the library because you liked the organization it expected.
Henry Troup wrote: And, when frameworks provide decent rule engines, I'll use them, too.
Right - because you know what you want, know what you need, and can therefore judge whether or not you're getting it. If the framework du-jour doesn't cut it, then you can write your own; if it does, then you'll use what someone else has written and debugged.
Frankly, i think that's the key difference between someone who can adapt to and thrive in whatever language and framework the job requires... and someone who clings stubbornly to their one and only. Not so much exceptional intelligence as diligence.
|
|
|
|
|
ya., You are true ., but wat one can do as a professional if there is a need to do only in the required programming language if the company asks to do so.., otherwise we have to search for food(oh another job) instead of searching for codes.,
|
|
|
|
|
You also have to consider the operating system.
My favourite language may be C, but only on DOS and OpenVMS.
For Windows/.net (where the money is) I'll stick with C#.
If someone offered me a job doing C on another operating system, I'd have to warn them that I'm not as familiar with it.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I'm self taught and have always been frustrated with command line compiler args. I've migrated towards C# because I don't ever have to use the command line compiler interface. I hate switching between windows (even on fast machines) to debug a function. So I would work on C or fortran projects but if I can get away with C# it just makes my development time shorter. However there are times when I feel more comfortable in C and fortran(MPI, pthreads) mostly because the documentation isn't quite so murkey .
|
|
|
|
|
ely_bob wrote: C# because I don't ever have to use the command line compiler interface
I use the CSC command-line all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm generally willing to try any new language at least once. However, I reserve the right to refuse to work with a language again. So far, the only language I outright refuse to work with is Smalltalk. I avoid legacy VB and Java like the plague, but I'll work with them for small projects if it's absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
mike.strobel wrote: I reserve the right to refuse to work with a language again
For me, it's Perl.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Reading Perl is hard; writing it is easy. So real Perl hacks always reimplement your code - it's easier than understanding it. APL is much the same.
Henry in Ottawa
|
|
|
|
|
Henry Troup wrote: Reading Perl is hard; writing it is easy
It's a "write once, read never" language.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Program, Execute, Relax and Let it go
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, well-written perl programs/libraries (not the one-liners I also use) tend to be at least
as readable as C or C++, often more so. When I write longer perl programs I tend to use the same
commenting and indenting rules for all 3 languages.
But because perl is also a good tool for one-off quick-and-dirty stuff and one-liners embedded in batch files/shell scripts/makefiles etc., some perl programmers fail to write readable code even when not doing such tasks.
Of cause like for any other language, understanding the breadth and depth of the language is needed to read other peoples code fluently. If you don't understand the notation and common idioms, even beautiful code like this can be hard to read:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# Accumulate and format the foobar table data
use warnings;
use strict;
use 5.6;
my $tot = 0;
while (<> ) {
s/^\s+
next if /^#/;
s/\s+\z
while (/\s\\\z/ and defined(my $cont = <> )) {
$cont =~ s/^\s+
next if $cont =~ /^#/;
$cont =~ s/\s+\z
s/\s*\\\z/\n $cont/s;
}
s/\s*\\?\z
next if /^\s*\z/s;
if (/^(\S+)\s+([-+]?\d+)\s+(.*)\z/s) {
$tot += $2;
printf "\%-10s \%10d \%s\n", $1, $tot, $3;
} else {
print STDERR "Unknown line ",$ARGV,"(",$.,"): '",$_,"'\n";
}
}
(Explanation: Parse all input lines, skip #-style comment lines, join \-style continuation lines but keep the line feeds and indent the continuations 22 columns, skip blank resulting lines, accumulate signed integers in the second column and output with total as second column, left align columns 1 and 3, right align the numeric column. Column 3 is optional and will be indented 22 columns. Warn about any input not matching the expected format).
P.S.
I am sure this could be written shorter with some additional libraries or idioms, this was written to illustrate readability, not a shortest-obfuscated-perl contest.
This message is hasty and is not to be taken as serious, professional or legally binding.
I work with low level C/C++ in user and kernel mode, but also dabble in other areas.
|
|
|
|
|
The worst is mod_Perl
Cheers
Marcello Turnbull
|
|
|
|
|
mike.strobel wrote: I avoid [...] Java like the plague
moron
|
|
|
|
|
that have a CListCtrl class.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment. Sadder still, if that's where you need to find it." - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Get with it. That thing's better off in a museum....
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|