On Feb 17, 2008 7:41 PM, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2008 7:31 PM, SJS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > How much time does it take to become minimally proficient in the > > language? If two weeks of continuous study and experimentation can't > > get someone past the point of "OMG this sucks" and within sight of the > > promised land, then there's a problem somewhere. > > If the language is sufficiently different, maybe several weeks. Maybe > a few months. It's a different way of thinking so it's going to take > time. > > Expect the shorter learning curve when the new language is close in > design to something you already know. > > > > However, I think it is more a sign of someone writing code who doesn't > > > know > > > the language very well. Haskell is a very hard language to learn, and in > > > most languages you tend to write pretty bad code when you don't know the > > > language. > > > > If it's THAT hard of a language to learn, then it's doomed to utter failure. > > For better or for worse, you are probably right. > > -Chuck
What Chuck says is sad but probably true. How many of us who have English as a first language can say we are fluent in a second natural language? Does this mean English is the only decent language? I suggest we ask people who speak English as a second or third language what they think about the issue. Are any of these other languages worth more than two weeks effort? Is it really the case that if you cannot learn a computer language in two weeks then there must be something wrong with the langauge. Or is this a statement about how intellectually lazy most programmers are? BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
