Bill Arnold wrote: >>From a tools point of view, there isn't a single "advance" that couldn't > have been done with the macro assembler, from structured to object > oriented programming and beyond, and that will remain true so long as > these machines are binary in nature. > > But it's not the tools that matter so much as the accomplishments and > the social consequences. From these standpoints we're losing, not > gaining, ground - despite all that glitters.
Knowledge of application development, and the ability to develop truly killer applications by standards of prior decades, is percolating to the masses. This is a good thing. Humans think in higher-level concepts, so the closer we bring computer languages to how humans think, the more people will be able to program computers. Why should a normal person care about the languages the machines use under the covers? And why should a normal person be expected to program in assembler? I don't get the pessimism. I look around and I see advancement, not decline, in technology. And it isn't just what glitters. Do you want to go back to the days where only the privileged few could get access to a computer? Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
