On Saturday 03 March 2007 03:02:19 am Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Friday 2007-03-02 at 20:09 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote: > > We just went into production at my current workspace with an > > enterprise-scale application that took three programmers a little over a > > year to code. The design and requirements took roughly four years. We're > > actually on the ninth point-release since 1/2/07 (2.1.07 for those on > > the right side of the Atlantic). > > Which leaves me without knowing for certain which month it is, the 2nd or > the first... So, assuming it is February, why not "7-2-1"? Or the ISO > format in my reply-leadin line above ;-) There is no doubt seeing > "2007-03-02" which is the year and the month and the day.
Well, not wanting to get dragged down in the "my-date-format-is-better-than-yours" war, how's 2007-01-02? (January 2nd - a.k.a. the first Monday business day in California this year.) > > > Had we done the code in C++ or even ASM, it is possible we could have > > either expanded the code or lessened it. I don't know at this time and it > > is a mute point. Writing in a 3GL such as C# allowed us to not worry > > about memory management in the way we would have been forced to had we > > writtin in a 2GL or - heaven forbid - assembler. > > I'm interested in this: can you expand, or point to a link? Maybe I'll > have a look at the wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-generation_programming_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_programming_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language#Generational_view Though not universally agreed-upon - I tend to lump C#/Java or other Form-based languages with the 3GL crowd. Many like to see C++ as either a 3GL or a 2GL. I > > > The "bloat" to which many people refer often is a result of added > > functionality. Let's face it - adding a GUI with lots of dummy-proof > > features - adds code and complexity. I'm sure Vi has a lot less code > > than does OpenOffice. > > I'll give an example, an old one. > > I don't remember which version of Turbo Pascal produced a minumum ~30 KiB > exe, just to write a "hello world" in the screen. Then, they invented what > they called "smart linking", and it went down to 2 or 4 KiB! The thing is > that their linker was clever enough to remove all functions from the > linked libraries not actually called in the program. The "Turbo C" version > of the same vintage didn't have the same ability. You know, I remember that. I used to write Pascal on my Apple II after I realized the limitations of BASIC. Heh! -- kai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
