On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You can have the best shiniest language, but if there are no libraries on > > it, then no one will care about it because its just to hard to get > started > > if one wants to build something big and grand - thats just life. > Libraries > > and frameworks keep a platform alive for development, fuzzy shiny bits > > inbuilt to the language only get things started. > > Language is not everything of course, but it's a synergy as I see it. > What made managers see VB6 as a productivity superstar while > developers saw it as a language abomination? The synergy of language, > library and tooling just made sense for a certain category of desktop > applications. What usually happens is that stuff starts as a specific > API, then it's generalized and then it's sometimes baked into first- > class language constructs. That is why we no longer roll our own > VTABLE which allows us to move from object oriented concepts into > code, a lot *faster* than before. This further facilitates tooling > aspects, such as compilers doing more static analysis and IDE's > supporting refactoring etc. > > > From the Danish people i have met many learn English > > simply because of the ubiquity of American and English popular culture, > so > > learning all three languages was almost automatic and part of growing up > - > > it just happened. > > Nah it doesn't just happen. It's mandatory to learn two foreign > languages in school. Language is seen as a desirable communication > skill just as reading, writing, debating in our native language. It's > what allows me to participate in this forum and consume resources that > would otherwise be out of reach. > > Which is my point exactly, English for Danes and many ppls in Europe isnt really a "different" language but a part of life. For computers for example you goto learn English, you cant really get as far with only Danish tehrefore English is just part of the journey - its not the focus. > > Scientists dont worry about what language or notations etc their material > is > > in, nor do they constantly strive to reinvent new means to express their > > work. > > Programming is not really a science, not when you step outside formal > CS with P != NP, Turing completeness etc. Programs are giant recipes > for how things work and we will likely never develop a notation > succinct enough to capture the semantics of side-effects, which is > what most real-world programs care about. If we aim for better > (faster, safer, cleaner, clearer...) ways to solve problems, it seems > only natural to target the language which is the primary driver of the > programming model. The alternative we see a good share of in Java, > everyone coming up with their own notion of properties which isn't > consistent across technologies (JAXB, JSF, Swing etc.). > > Of course not, i never said it was a science my point was more about forgetting about the basics (what programming language one uses) and getting into the real stuff(big programs which naturally use lots and lots of libs). > -- > 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. > > -- mP -- 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.
