|
Maybe I should have been more precise: It is accepted as one of several options in systems design.
Not everyone is following the "agile" apporach to extremes, the one where you do, like: "Oh, so you have a problem? Let's start with 'int main(int argc, char** argv) { return 0;}'. There! Now we are going at it. So what is your problem?"
I know that "waterfall" is one of the baddest swear words you can use in today's software development world. But when you go through our company's process description from a customer requirement spec to the product delivery, it looks awfully close to a waterfall. Each individual step is managed according to agile principles (this is stressed a lot internally), and if I had made even slight side remarks about the process having strong resemblande to the waterfall model, I would have been fired the same day. So I don't.
I believe this is far more common than up-to-date programmers want to know of. They want to enforce a pure agile strategy at their step of the waterfall, believing that that is everything there is. But in a large, established product oriented company that still maintenance on products developed ten years ago, and considers what the market will want five years into the future, you very easily end up with something very much like a waterfall. We just call it by different names, and avoid the swear words.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, do it. By the way TI-BASIC has an -> operator for assignment, of course working left to right. And Smalltalk has left-to-right evaluation of operations instead of relying on operator precedence (which is initially confusing, but you don't have to remember the relative precedences of uncommon combinations of operators).
|
|
|
|
|
Nikunj_Bhatt wrote: So, what are your views on creating a new programming language which follows proper LtR execution?
What "problem" would that solve?
Yeah, I didn't think so. There's plenty of languages to know already, I don't think anybody wants another one that only "fixes" this.
|
|
|
|
|
It may not solve any problem. I presented my thought from logical view as programming is all about logic. I have already wrote that I know that there are already plenty of programming languages; I am not actually going to create any language.
|
|
|
|
|
Hold on.
Are we talking about computer programming languages, or people programming languages?
Because computers don't even know what right and left are, so they don't care.
If you're really desperate to fix this problem-that-ain't-even-remotely-a-problem, then use a modular approach, where which "direction" the flow goes depends on the structure of the source data and whatever overloading you have set up.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I am talking about computer programming language having more logical syntax while remaining fairly easy to understand for programmers.
|
|
|
|
|
Natural and formal languages (math being one of the latter, programming languages are another example) have different use cases. As hard as it is to create an exact statement in, I dare to say, every single natural language (although some are better for this task than others), as easy it is in the formalized language of math or programming (I dare to say that C++'s convoluted syntax is an exception here). My point is that applying a set of rules not developed for formality to something that has to be formal may not yield the best results.
|
|
|
|
|
Or use a good one, already invented.
POP-2 - Wikipedia[^]
With lambdas, managed mem, closures (full and partial), user-defined operators, user-defined setter functions, functions with multiple results, incremental compiler ...
And with alternative ltr syntaxes:
f(a,b) ->x ->y
or
a; b.f() ->x ->y
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! That's what I am talking about. It seems very much similar to my idea of a proper logical programming language. Thank you. 
|
|
|
|
|
You can already read this right to left.
"=" is read as "is assigned to" not "equals". duh!
x = a + 12
Could be read as
12 added to a is assigned to x
Or left to right:
x is assigned a added to 12
Is your language going to support order of operations that follow neither direction?
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: x is assigned a added to 12
You wrote in English. It is like passive voice. Instead of "I have done this" you are writing "It has been done by me".
If we write x = a + 12, it can be understood like this: (1) create a variable "x" (allocate memory), (2) add value of the variable "a" to 12 (store the sum somewhere in memory), (3) store the sum in variable "x".
If we write a + 12 = x (OR a + 12 -> x), it can be understood like this: (1) add the value of variable "a" to 12 (store the sum somewhere in memory), (3) Create a variable "x" (allocate memory), (4) store the sum in variable "x".
In the first approach, it is like - the system is allocating memory first without knowing the result. In the second approach, it is like - the system is first determining the result and then allocating memory according to the result. This second approach looks more logical way of executing and writing code.
I think, the 1st approach is suitable to programming languages of .NET, C based, Java, etc. where variables needed to be defined before assigning values; while the 2nd approach is suitable for languages like JavaScript, PHP, etc. where variables can be defined/initialized anywhere in the code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My views ?
1. you are wasting your time.
2. using = for assignment is evil, but, perhaps a necessary one we are stuck with forever.
3. post-fix (RPN) is no more natural, or unnatural, than any other notation. a great benefit of RPN is that you can parse it without need for recursive descent to figure out execution order.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
In mathematical language, right-to-left or left-to-right is inconsequential pertaining to an equal sign due to complete commutativity law of equivalence.
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
Simon Wiesenthal made his life's ambition to prosecute all war criminals. I cannot think of anyone who would have disagreed with this, and, rightfully, many war criminals were convicted, even though they were in their eighties or nineties, whereas they committed their offences at a prim young age, of say 20!
The people of Northern Ireland want justice! Similar war crimes were committed by the Parachute Regiment in the 1970's on Irish soil.
In retrospect, to send the Parachute regiment, was a wrong political decision. Unfortunately, the commanders have since died, and cannot be tried anymore!
The bottom line is that war criminals should be prosecuted!
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
Vengeance isn't ours.
Now take it to the soapbox.
modified 15-May-19 19:11pm.
|
|
|
|
|
While this really is a Soapbox topic, I'll address this here. If the people of Northern Ireland want justice then the people of Northern Ireland should be happy with that being applied equally which would mean that the blanket amnesty that members of organisations like the PIRA, UDF, etc received, should be removed as well. What you're talking about here isn't justice, it's revenge.
Oh, and if you're going to prosecute the soldiers, make sure you prosecute the politicians who sent them in with guidelines on how to operate. Oh wait, they aren't going to be prosecuted either?
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram van Kampen wrote: even though they were in their eighties or nineties, whereas they committed their offences at a prim young age, of say 20!
Nope. There should be statutes of limitations.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to keep things rational, I'll add the rationale behind the points you bring up.
Soldiers have one job: kill the enemy. That's all they're trained for.
If the self-proclaimed "soldiers" of the factions involved failed to understand that they had pushed their self-proclaimed "war" to the point where they weren't just dealing with roly-poly policemen on bicycles any more, then who is to blame if real soldiers simply did their job?
There are two things you can do with this discussion:
0. Take it to the soapbox
1. Take it anywhere other than CP
It's got piss-all to do with "those who code".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You had one job to do Ron. Go to that attorney's office at lunch and down a 2011 small business server, put more RAM in and bring it up, all in an hour.
So I showed up, they all went to lunch I went start, shutdown and then it happened.
Installing Update 1 of 76
Don't tun off your computer.
That was 2.5 hours ago and it's 61 of 79.
Look M.S., you and I know this is a server OS. The least you could have done was consider other people's time and reputation and give us admins the option to not do it right now as when they come back from lunch they are going to expect to be able to get at their files.
This happened to us last year when we were to just down and up the server for trivial matters and ran into 176 updates.
I am now connecting to all of the servers in our care and A. Disabling the Windows Update Service and B. creaming c:\windows\Software Distribution
I am so mad I could cry. I feel like grabbing my dog and riding the rails to who knows where.
|
|
|
|
|
Postpone updates, you get bitten.
|
|
|
|
|
why?
I visit sites with internal servers that haven't run update for a long time - disabled for good, one since 2012 that one runs 24/7 and at very most gets shut down once a year for building power maintenance or similar external reasons only.
It works, leave it alone, no shutting down for updates, NO FAILED UPDATES because there aren't any, no incompatibilities introduced by updates - heard a lot about that too.... (oh, and virus scans on demand only)
better than 99.995% up-time.
(None of those clients has ever regretted that advice I gave them to do that.)
Yeah I know laughing at the idiots fighting update issues is cruel, but apart from that ... am I doing something wrong? Name it!
(Please no MS evangelism bullshit, 99% of the reasons ms and the flocks of ms-lemings give for "always updating" and always full time virus scans are complete and utter bullshit.)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, just being practical. If you don't want 76 patches at once, patch often. Same thing applies to Linux. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: Same thing applies to Linux
A perhaps minor difference being that you decide when.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
