tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post7380356263096555640..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: Everything But The Relevant Facts Dept.Francis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-43620672342763681462012-06-15T11:28:37.438-04:002012-06-15T11:28:37.438-04:00Most programmers have a bias, simple as that. The...Most programmers have a bias, simple as that. They like they language they use and they look for reasons to dislike another or a new language. Most of the current popular languages are "pushed" in college and that is what the latest crop of programmers use and they are biased against another language. This is not the same thing as saying the popular languages are the best. If all of the colleges had made a concerted effort to push some now obscure language then IT would be the popular one and it's supporters would justify it by claiming it was more efficient and superior. Every program every piece of code and every resulting machine language created as a result of higher level code is a compromise. But over the last 20 years or so the cost of memory, CPU speed and storage has dramatically decreased. Thus most of the compromise took advantage of this and code has created longer, larger and more complex machine language and efficiency has sufferred as a result. Many years ago a programmer might create a tight 30 instruction machine language routine (because he had to) but today a programmer might do the same task with 200-300 machine language instructions and not even know or care how long the code was or what it did. The question might be asked; does it matter? After all today's computers are faster, have more memory and storage so who cares? But the point remains that some of the popular languages and many programmers have long ago stopped worrying about the efficiency of the resultant machine language code and these languages would have been impossible to implement 30 years ago when these traits were important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-48719990541653348312012-06-11T21:50:49.444-04:002012-06-11T21:50:49.444-04:00You're right. The bright and shiny should be e...You're right. The bright and shiny should be eschewed in favor of the Tools That Work. That said, I find Python *quite* useful, along with PyQt. They won't replace C in my toolbox, they're more like a socket set in addition to the combination wrenches C provides.<br /><br />PS --- please, the cloud background on mobile devices is unreadable, making your posts completely unreadable...any interest in fixing it? Thanks!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13851276000282024846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-30382821514868762762012-06-11T15:12:10.370-04:002012-06-11T15:12:10.370-04:00We shouldn't forget the Governments Ada disast...We shouldn't forget the Governments Ada disaster. It cost the taxpayers a whole lot more than the PL/I disaster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-32355148029442937872012-06-11T15:03:20.915-04:002012-06-11T15:03:20.915-04:00If they knew anything about being a working develo...If they knew anything about being a working developer, they'd be working developers, rather than researchers.<br /><br />I study new tools when those new tools appear to offer greater leverage over the problems in my life than the tools I already know offer. Which is an event that occurs...well...more often for me than it does for Our Host, it seems. Knowing what I know about our respective professional problem domains, this is not especially surprising. Also, it helps that nobody is going to literally _die_ if an app I'm working on has a problem in the upstream toolchain that isn't my fault but will still be blamed on me.<br /><br />The simpler explanation for the phenomenon these researchers explore is that the tools of the present are adequate for solving all the problems we've already thought up, and to the extent that they're sub-optimal for any given task, most would-be improvers are more likely to focus their efforts on patching or expanding existing tools than developing completely new ones. Improving an existing system usually offers better ROI. Which means it's going to be the preferred route for those people who have real work to get done...that is, anyone whose employer's name doesn't contain the word "University".lelnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08600824544185328505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-21125079305098469622012-06-11T12:26:01.952-04:002012-06-11T12:26:01.952-04:00You mean, use the right tool for the job? Perish ...You mean, use the right tool for the job? Perish the thought!pdwalkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05943525787137905313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-25446393355995212412012-06-11T07:59:13.767-04:002012-06-11T07:59:13.767-04:00What a great pity politicians, social "scient...What a great pity politicians, social "scientists" and bureaucrats don't share your approach to the adoption of bright and shiny new ideas, Francis.KGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01940428991630766942noreply@blogger.com