Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Programming language and IDE design Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:55:09 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 18 Sender: johnl@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <13-10-031@comp.compilers> References: <13-10-016@comp.compilers> <13-10-022@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1382627969 90360 64.57.183.58 (24 Oct 2013 15:19:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: design Posted-Date: 24 Oct 2013 11:19:29 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1014 >> Similarly foolish wisdom is seen in IDEs (Integrated Development >> Environments) which allow the programmer to create hundreds of lines >> of code with just a few clicks of the mouse. Thus instantly creating >> a significant maintenance effort. > 99% (or more) of generated code will never be touched by a human. > Probably 80% of it even will never be looked at. > I have never read anything which suggests to me that Dijkstra was - or > would have been - against source code generators. IIUC, the OP was referring to the use of things like templates. I.e. case where the generated source code is then edited by the user. DSLs, macros, compiler compilers, and other code generators are completely different, since the generated code is constantly re-generated: it's not "source" code. Stefan