[ILUG] introduction to programming

[Braun Brelin]

There are good reasons why one would use a language like Python, for
example or Java over older languages like C.

I've worked at several companies where the development language was C.  It
was *very* apparent that C is not appropriate for very large/enterprise
class applications.  C has it's place in certain classes of software, but
there's no way that I'd do a large application in C any more, it's just
not worth the aggravation.  I'd also include C++ in this.

There are, in my opinion, two major reasons why newer languages are more
appropriate for use in software development.

1.  Garbage collection.  No more malloc()/free() issues.
2.  Exception handling.

Additionally, languages like Python kick out the 'compile' in the
code/compile/test cycle.  This can save major amounts of time...

Saying that languages are pretty much the same and that they're roughly
interchangeable is like saying that all firearms are the same and that a
18th century matchlock is as efficient as a 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

Braun Brelin



> kevin lyda wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 02:26:47PM +0100, Braun Brelin wrote:
>>
>>>I was.  Unlucky enough, that is.
>>
>>
>> ouch.  i tried using it on vms but found it far too painful.
>
> You know, sometimes people seem to get very non-Spock about these
> things...
>
> I think it's highly suspect to claim that there is one, all embracing
> doubleplusgood language... out there... that is *obviously* appropiate
> for elucidating /newbies/ amorphously, perhaps I'm wrong... I'd doubt
> I'd have the patience to *impart* information to people..
>
> Moreover, even though Python is popular right *now* and BASIC isn't...
> BASIC has been around since the 1960s... and when we dispell with the
> reflexive (it's too close to VB and noone likes Microsoft) it is...
> well... basic, so perhaps not a *bad* place to start people off at...
>
> For example if a programming language was named
> "ReallyReallyDifficult"... I'd question it's appropiateness, for
> exposure to newbies....
>
> That said... if one dispels, specialist languages like SQL, or prolog
> and lists a common domain of languages, C, C++, Assembler, BASIC, Java,
> Perl, PHP, Python, Cyclone, (Pascal ? this is C-like is it not?)...  and
> one wishes to accomplish 90% of real world programming tasks, I can't
> see any clear real reason to use one over another.. depending on what
> your objectives are and what features you really need.
>
> Sure... Assembler might let you influence a special purpose register, on
> a particular Embedded system, that you simply can't accomplish in C...
> or non memory managed languages mightn't be *ideal* for use in providing
> dynamic web content...
>
> If the goal is to understand code design, modularity, implementation of
> OO (without relying on a language that is specifically OO), code review,
> correct error checking... code colocation, scoping, prototyping,
> efficienty, and functionality... I don't see how, aside from the obvious
> disjoinable 'specific' languages, that any *one* language is
> demonstrably *more* appropiate then another...
>
> I'd like to think I have enough objective logic to recognise that my own
> language *preferences* are *preferences*... as opposed to ethereal
> edicts in "what's the most appropiate language" for everybody on the
> planet... for all time.
>
> Which is why I have such a hard time believing Python, is such a quantum
> leap, from say... C, or Java... or PHP.... or when we drop alot of the
> fire brands... even BASIC.
>
> If you can write good Java code... I'd wonder, why you couldn't write
> good BASIC code... if you understand code design and implementation and
> you are good at it... how does it matter if these skills are learned in
> BASIC, C, Java, Assembler or Python ?
>
> Indeed if you are a super-hero like coder... what's to stop you
> implementing project-x... in the following ?
>
> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
>
>
>
>
> !
> --
> Irish Linux Users' Group
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug/
>