|
modified 21-Mar-12 3:18am.
|
|
|
|
|
and that would be ASM 
Yusuf
Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If I want to search a text file regular expressions are an obvious choice. If I wanted to search structured relational data *SQL is probably more useful. It is far easier to understand the structure of a windows form in XAML than the same layout generated by windows form designer. ...
There are numerous specialized languages that when used for the purpose intended are often more terse and more expressive, and the higher we can raise the abstraction the better. But many and/or frequent differences between tools doing the same job for no apparent reason can be frustrating. Although there are occasionally valid reasons for one regex engine to use a slightly different syntax then another regex engine. There is much less value in having multiple languages targeting the same level of abstraction such as VB and C# (and I feel bad for authors who often need to write books in both languages for no good reason).
|
|
|
|
|
Languages and applications are purely examples of the developer using the tools that they choose at some point in time to create solutions. Asking something like "Should we have more languages?" is akin to asking "Should we have more stationary??" Who's we? The CodePlex users? Visual Studio code monkeys? Linux Geeks? Some international standards body for computer languages?
Last time I checked it's legal to write your own languages, and I'm not sure with that being the case why anyone in his or her right mind would assert an answer like 'no you shouldn't do that, we have all the languages we need' or 'yes, we need more, the right langauge has not yet been discovered.'
Come on, people. The concept in question here is absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree each language has its own unique characteristics. Many have a unique purpose. We should not all move to a general-purpose language that would be good for scientific and business and other purposes.
cheers,
Donsw
My Recent Article : Ajax Calendar Control
|
|
|
|
|
Right now, I am desiging a computer language called Tree. In this functional/imperative/declarative language, tree data structure is the first class citizen. All data structures are implemented, using trees, for example, array is a single level tree and a single-linked list is a tree where each parent node has only one child node. This Tree language works really well and optimized if your problem domain has something to do with tree data structures, example HTML DOM or XML DOM. And this Tree language of mine is going to trump every conceivable computer languages in this world, and they include C# and Haskell!!
World Domination for me!! *Evil laughs* Hahahaha.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably your program self destructs if you try to print it of print from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ever had to solve the same problem in 2 or more languages? For the people who pay our salaries, this could be perceived as duplication in effort. Overall productivity improves if we reduce the number of languages, simply because we can solve the same problem fewer times.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, legacy systems shouldn't be updated in newer languages. If it's written in COBOL, leave it in COBOL. 
|
|
|
|
|
There will be a minimum of two languages possible #1 Whatever Microsoft promotes #2 Everyone else's
Not that I am particularly anti-Microsoft, just recognizing that they will always do their best to maintain a proprietary offering.
I really think we should reduce the number of languages. Being a pretty old programmer, I have seen many come and go. While there is always some reason behind the next new one, what really happens is that our whole industry just goes through a re-learning and re-development exercise primarily for our own benefit, whenever the next new "latest and greatest" comes along.
|
|
|
|
|
Generally one of the toughest things is switching development team to another language. Since than, studing the Java from developer's point of view looks more promising, cause thereafter you can program practically whole range of applications(desktop,web,mobile, etc...). I'm not talking about writing compilers, drivers, ... where the Assembly language is required.
|
|
|
|
|
While the goal of a single language would be worthwhile, it is difficult to see how it would work in practice.
For example, there are major differences in language requirements between Teaching langauges, Desktop languages, and Embedded langauages. While C# or VB are pretty good for the first two, I shudder to think of garbage collection during interrupt! C++ can be used for Embedded, and Desktop, but as a Teaching language it allows too many horrors. Assembler is quick - good for embedded sometimes - and would certainly teach people a thing or two, but as a Desktop langauge? Hmm.
I think the problem is that we need a major change in the way we program before we can consider a single langauge.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. "Horses for courses" is the saying I like to use.
The low-end embedded work I've been doing over the last 20+ years uses mostly C (not C++, except in some of the higher-end systems). C is still a better choice for the low-end processors.
However, there are many languages that fit other jobs better. My current employer, for instance, uses LabVIEW to run automated testing. We also use Python for automating some of the development tasks.
I have no objection to C# or VB for a Windows-based platform. Or Java, or C++ or whatever gets the job done efficiently. Sometimes, you have to adjust your expectations to the developer(s) as well.
As you say, though, it's the way things are done rather than the language in which they're done that needs changing. Too many people jump in with no thought about design, testability or maintainability.
It's possible to write garbage in any language.
Professional Geek,
Amateur Stage-Levelling Gauge
|
|
|
|
|
There are way too many tasks in different domains waiting for new solutions (and new languages). But new languages need to be bring radically new concepts (such as object or functional programming).
|
|
|
|
|
I dont agree with you. We don't need more languages than the few hundreds we already have today. But we need an active evolution on the existing ones. Then there will always be a good language to chose for in the future 
Sidenote: What we don't need at all is this copy-cat language behaviour of some languages. They usually don't offer a big advantage and often realize with time that they really do need to implement all those hateful features they bragged about not needing in the beginning ... as seen with Java + C# who now copy the features from C++ which they loathed so much.
|
|
|
|
|
...Everything eventually works off of Binary. Just think, if we could just use that we would only need two buttons on our keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
We might need more than two - back when you started computers by keying in binary on the front panel, you needed "address/data" toggles, plus "store" and "execute" before the damn thing would start. (Still more reliable than windows, tho.)
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you say windows is not relia
Sorry my windows locked
I complain about windows (can we say bloat) but it does pay some of the bills.
It also has improved over the years. I remember a 95 seminary where they said 95 has a half life so you WILL be reinstalling.
|
|
|
|
|
djj55 wrote: I remember a 95 seminary where the said ...
I didn't know one could get ordained in Windows, I guess it's how one becomes a Windows Evangelist.
|
|
|
|
|
as soon as i ascend to my rightful place as God Of Programming, i will forbid the use of any language other than Haskell.
compiler writers will be permitted to use Assembler appropriate to the machine. but only for the duration of the compiler project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A true puritan would demand that the hardware consume Haskell directly.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but Puritans would have the hardware assassinate Haskell, not consume it.
That's because Haskell's practitioners never stop proclaiming it to be the King of Languages.
Puritans use C it's a spartan language free of decoration, and why is it called C - short for Cromwell.
|
|
|
|
|
As long as this site still gets new or revised articles in pure C++ (no .NET stuff) and maybe even ongoing support for MFC (which I still need to use, alas) then I'm happy
Thanks a lot for keeping this site up and running guys!
PS: It would be nice to add Qt articles, it's a good library with honest C++ code in it! http://www.qtsoftware.com - Nokias Qt
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
