|
I don't know what the debate is about it's called Structured Query Language and not Structured Programming language. The name it self tells you what it is. 
If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style. (Quentin Crisp)
Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. (Ronald Reagan)
|
|
|
|
|
Funny discussion, but uhmmm .... if SQL is not a programming language why does wikipedia list SQL as a sample of a "Fourth-generation programming language"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4GL
I guess that would make it officially a programming language... next to it also being a query language.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, when I talk about SQL, I tell people it's neither Structured, nor just for Queries, nor a Language, hehe.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe that I'm the only one that haunts The Code Project as an "amateur" programmer or home enthusiast, hobbyist, so I'm posting here. I used to code for a living, though it was a VERY long time ago, when I did test development and test programming in HP Basic, or "Rocky Mountain Basic." I now only code at work occasionally (in C++), when none of the paid programmers have time to produce a quick tool that we need around the lab, and when I think that it falls within my capabilities. But I digress. My real point is that I come here to The Code Project pretty often, and I spend a lot of time programming on my own dime and time, at home. But it doesn't pay the bills. Just thinking (or hoping, perhaps) that lots of other subscribers fall into this category.
Colin(ABQ)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't hope too much. I've been out of work for a month, and I know I'm not the only one for whom programming isn't currently paying the bills. 
But at least I have some time to work on some things I've been meaning to and rework some older code.
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't pay my bills.. yet however thinking about a startup.. now if I only had an idea.... 
|
|
|
|
|
You are not the only one. I also only code for a hobby, although I do have one project that does bring in a little cash. So far it has brought in about $2000 in the past five years.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
If you check the previous thread ("SQL isn't a programming language") there are a lot more of us with you than we think... 
|
|
|
|
|
So what do you do to pay the bills?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
|
|
|
|
|
While C# is definitely my cash cow, and I LOVE using it...I have to say I'm very intrigued by F#. In my limited time using it, I find it quite refreshing for small projects, and I can see it having tremendous potential as a scripting language. I don't ever think it would replace C# as my language of choice (or the language that pays the bills), but I can indeed see F# becoming a serious contender for my time as soon as I get VS2010.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree...
Also, does anyone else notice a striking similarity to Python?
|
|
|
|
|
It feels similar to a lot of dynamic languages...and even feels like LISP at times. It feels like C# did back in the early days...like it was a blend of the best of the best (C++, Java, VB, etc.), without the useless fluff.
|
|
|
|
|
What the F# is F#?
I feel Im getting old, not in the physical respect and certainly noy in the arithmetic way
But those new languages...
In my time I have learned C/C++ VB6 and java but always worked with something else. Always being the one who should take care of the old system until the new stuff was mature and stable or bridging the old and new stuff together.
The new stuff NEVER emerged... There was never recources enough or it was just not doable to migrate the old system to a new platform/language etc.
I always wanted to use the meethods and tools learned. Not because it was cool but because it would solve the problems with minimum effort and leave a managable system behind. Well documented and easy to maintain and scale up.
I have learned to build miracles with chewingum and old socks. I have keept the old smoking heaps of rubish alive and going. The future never arived, it was there all along. In the moment of triumf, of the joy of writing the next piece of software to save the customer some salary...
But, you know what they say: you are only as good as your last project...
Java
C#
Gupta Team Developer 3.1
VC++ 2003
Oracle 8i79i
W2K-XP
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely, (I have 30 years of programming experience) and I experienced similar situations.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Rista wrote: I can see it having tremendous potential as a scripting language.
WHy do you say that? F# is a compiled, statically typed language and is more suitable as a replacement of C# than a scripting language. If you are looking for a scripting language that runs on .NET platform, consider IronScheme, IronPython or IronRuby.
|
|
|
|
|
Because of #light mode, perhapse? And it doesn't have to be compiled...like any language, its a set of rules...syntax, semantics, etc. and it will be an open standard like C#. Wouldn't be that hard to write a parser for it and interperate F# "script" if a scripting language was needed for an application.
Also, F# will never be a replacement for C#...at best a compliment. It wasn't designed to solve the same kinds of problems C# was designed for.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Rista wrote: Because of #light mode, perhapse?
What about #light mode? It merely removes some OCaml syntax.
Jon Rista wrote: Wouldn't be that hard to write a parser for it and interperate F# "script" if a scripting language was needed for an application.
No, but the same can be said for C#.
Jon Rista wrote: F# will never be a replacement for C#...
Unfortunatelly that is probably true, but not because they cover different use case scenarios (they don't) but because people are used to their ways. Also, there is already a lot of legacy C# code out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: What about #light mode? It merely removes some OCaml syntax.
Which makes it about the perfect "weight" for script. 
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: No, but the same can be said for C#.
True enough, but with C#, you need to have a full class at some point. With F#, you can keep it light weight and simple. Both "could" be used as script...F# lends itself better to it.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: not because they cover different use case scenarios (they don't)
C# is an (imperative) OO language, and primarily covers the scenario where we define how to solve problems algorithmically. F# is a (declarative) functional language, and covers the scenario where we define what we need and what to do, but not specifically how to do it. How to do it vs. what to do. The latter is ideal from a scripting standpoint where your most probably automating a system that contains the "how to", and your just telling that system "what to do".
(C# offers some functional capabilities via Lambdas, type initializers, and type inference...but those limited functional capabilities can't replace F#.)
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than deal with the largely arbitrary class hierarchy of .NET, I'd prefer to count parentheses in LISP or track a Forth stack in my head.
|
|
|
|
|
Severian@Severian.org wrote: largely arbitrary class hierarchy of .NET
Largely arbitrary? How so? 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Care to explain how the .NET framework class hierarchies are "arbitrary"?
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Rista wrote: Care to explain how the .NET framework class hierarchies are "arbitrary"?
Anyone who likes LISP is obviously a troll.
|
|
|
|
|
LISP has its place and solves certain problems very well. I don't particularly like its syntax (rather I think its atrocious), but it does have its place.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure you're correct. My post was in jest mostly. I don't know enough about LISP to make a real judgment on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, perhapse this would help shed some light (and humor) on the subject:
http://xkcd.com/297/
http://xkcd.com/224/
http://xkcd.com/312/
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
