I think the attitude is more that you can do everything you need to in the current language, so why would you want to switch?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > None of this is intended to denigrate any of the languages mentioned, of > course. And believe-it-or not I had no specific individuals in mind either. > But I am, and shall remain, convinced that computer science has learned a > trick or two since BASIC, or COBOL, or any of the others were created. Some > of these advances are just too painful to retrofit to a language that quite > correctly places a high premium on backwards compatibility. > The forces acting here are powerful, and impossible to reconcile. Which > means that as a language matures, new concepts become ever harder to adopt. > Historically, such change has instead been managed by the creation of new > languages, for which backward compatibility is no longer an issue. > I'll repeat... This is in no manner detrimental to earlier languages, they > form an essential foundation to those that came later. But is it truly > possible to embrace e.g. Pascal in preference to its immediate predecessor > (Algol), which was in turn written to avoid some of the known flaws in > Fortran - and yet simultaneously believe that Pascal is the pinnacle, that > past languages were mere coincidence, and that Pascal could never possibly > be improved upon? > It seems a strangely contradictory attitude to take in a profession that is > otherwise making bold steps to embrace change through power of agile > methodologies > > > On 3 October 2010 12:54, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Absolutely. All of my experience is that developers willing to step >> outside of their box, and to learn new languages and ideas are better for >> it. >> Not only does the learning experience expose you to more examples of >> quality code, but you also end up with a larger "mental toolbox" of >> approaches to learn from. I've already given JodaTime as an example of >> this, google collections is another, you can find many more if you shop >> around. >> Nowadays, we're even starting to see some category theory trickle back >> into >> Java: http://apocalisp.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/structural-pattern-matching-in-java/ All >> of this cross-fertilization is a Very Good Thing(tm). >> BASIC has its share of dogmatic and obstinate followers, unwilling to >> accept change. As does COBOL, Pascal, Fortran, C#, etc. And yes, Java does >> too. >> Scala, F#, Haskell, Clojure... not so much. These languages all still >> have very active communities, looking to explore the realms of what is >> possible and definitely not set in their ways - a description that I imagine >> any good developer would like to have applied to themselves. >> It's only natural, then, that a language actively seeking to push the >> state of the art will also attract like-minded developers. But does this >> mean that it's therefore unsuitable for anyone else? Of course not! But >> there will always be some for whom their doctrine is a great comfort, and >> these people *will* find it distressing if they should ever have to move to >> a different language. >> >> >> On 3 October 2010 01:53, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I agree though age of this exposure and the individuals mind set are >>> paramount. Some people seem to be brain washed easily with other ideas, >>> Religion for example, and others have been able to refute them quite easily >>> based on alternative evidence regardless of the initial exposure time. >>> There are other fundamental individual differences, for example life time >>> learners and those who seem to become very limited, very early. This is not >>> unique to technology by any means. I have seen both types of developer and >>> I personally can not attribute this purely to languages they initially >>> learned. Indeed many of them were brought up on something more structured >>> such as C or Pascal or Modula II. However they appear to be equally adapt >>> in using any languages and building complete crap or great systems with it. >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Long-term lack of exposure to significant programming paradigms has got >>>> to impact your skills, how could it be otherwise? >>>> I've witnessed the pain of others in transitioning from procedural to >>>> object-oriented methodologies, it isn't pretty! >>>> I've also seen OO abused when treated as the only paradigm in town. >>>> It's the old story, "when all you have is a hammer..." >>>> I highly recommend the fantastic "Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns" >>>> article for more on the subject: >>>> >>>> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html >>>> Closer to home, it's impossible that anyone would create the universally >>>> hated Java Date/Time if they had first been exposed to functional >>>> programming and the correct use of immutable objects (ideas that JodaTime >>>> clearly embraced) >>>> >>>> So yes, BASIC can harm your skills, at least if you become >>>> institutionalised within the language. >>>> But it's not really BASIC that's at fault here, it's the concept if >>>> being locked into a particular (restricted) way of doing things, and then >>>> struggling to break free of the self-imposed prison that such an approach >>>> can create. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3 October 2010 00:24, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think its pretty irrelevant if you started on BASIC or any other >>>>> language for that matter and how that has impacted your current skills. >>>>> Someone who feels they have been technically crippled permanently from >>>>> exposure to BASIC would likely be not very be technical anyway. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 07:36 -0700, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: >>>>>> [ . . . ] >>>>>> > Basic is definitely not receiving enough credit, in my opinion. >>>>>> > Actually, it's being unjustly vilified. Who was it again who said >>>>>> > that >>>>>> > anyone who started programming with Basic was irrecoverably corrupt >>>>>> > and would never become a good programmer? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dijkstra, who is both the source of some great things that have >>>>>> benefited programming and software development, and things that have >>>>>> acted as barriers holding back software development for decades. >>>>>> >>>>>> "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to >>>>>> students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential >>>>>> programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of >>>>>> regeneration." >>>>>> >>>>>> "I think of the company advertising 'Thought Processors' or the >>>>>> college pretending that learning BASIC suffices or at least >>>>>> helps, whereas the teaching of BASIC should be rated as a >>>>>> criminal offence: it mutilates the mind beyond recovery." >>>>>> >>>>>> > I bet that a lot of people on this list started programming with >>>>>> > Basic >>>>>> > (myself included), and I think we turned out alright :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hummm... people who started with Basic and yet have become good >>>>>> programmers in a number of languages must have great powers of >>>>>> recovery >>>>>> and regeneration. This must mean they are either vampires or trolls >>>>>> ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Russel. >>>>>> >>>>>> ============================================================================= >>>>>> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: >>>>>> sip:[email protected] >>>>>> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] >>>>>> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kevin Wright >>>> >>>> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] >>>> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright >>>> twitter: @thecoda >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en. >> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Wright >> >> mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] >> pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright >> twitter: @thecoda >> > > > > -- > Kevin Wright > > mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] > pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright > twitter: @thecoda > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
