as reply to mails, i am from pre-ms generation.

when ms arrived the things had to be ibm compatible - it worked by
creating a relatively common denominator (lowest maybe) for making
mass software feasible (lotus 123 was the spreadsheet of the era but
visicalc was the first; ashton tate's dbase became the database entry
level later).

the paradigm shifted with borland turbo pascall - libraries of code
were applied to cut down repetitive coding (i think borland was the
first to use the term window - the mouse arrived with ventura
publishing).

this shift was a breath of fresh air and we all said that we were well
on the way to a new generation which would automate even further and
almost interpret things into plain english.

now about 25 years on, we are still tick-ticking in code via a babel
of languages - analyse the repetitive nature of the info being sought
in the group and it seems that most are reinventing a wheel.

of course i am getting old and cranky but not without reasonable cause
- the very attainable things and logical progress have not happened.

time for coffee and a smoke!



On Oct 20, 6:54 am, Cerebrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe because we've never heard of any such thing ?
>
> On Oct 20, 1:03 am, flatfilehater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > can anyone reasonably explain why we are still writing code instead of
> > using super generation-z or whatever interpreters?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"DotNetDevelopment, VB.NET, C# .NET, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, XML, XML Web 
Services,.NET Remoting" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/DotNetDevelopment

You may subscribe to group Feeds using a RSS Feed Reader to stay upto date 
using following url  

<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/DotNetDevelopment";> 
http://feeds.feedburner.com/DotNetDevelopment</a>
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to