Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37879 > unrolled thread

WHY

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 08:01 -0800
    Re: WHY Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2017-12-19 17:47 +0000
      Re: WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 10:28 -0800
        Re: WHY Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net> - 2017-12-19 19:49 +0100
          Re: WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 11:12 -0800
          Re: WHY Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2017-12-19 19:17 +0000
            Re: WHY Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net> - 2017-12-19 22:59 +0100
        Re: WHY Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-19 19:59 -0500
        Re: WHY Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-19 20:07 -0500
      Re: WHY Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-12-19 20:16 -0500
    Re: WHY Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net> - 2017-12-19 19:40 +0100
      Re: WHY Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-12-19 14:42 -0500
        Re: WHY lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-12-19 11:48 -0800
          Re: WHY Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 12:49 -0800
            Re: WHY Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2017-12-19 22:57 +0000

#37879 — WHY

While not exactly Java related, I wanted to ask someone why.
I've always assumed there are many spoken languages in the world because they were mostly developed independently, having no knowledge of other languages, aside from a language like English developed to standardize language as it's derived from many other languages.

Now it would seem most people developing programming languages are aware of other programming languages, so why do they keep making new programming languages??  I would have to assume either 1) None of the existing 50+ languages can do something they need to do, possibly on specific hardware, 2) existing languages that could do something they need to do couldn't do it efficiently enough, or 3) a matter of personal preference (write a new language from scratch because you want to create your own method names?)

I was doing a quick search today on the syntax for a new VBScript, because I know VBScript but it's been awhile since I've written one, and it does what I need to do so I don't care to learn PowerShell.  I found a nice blog from a guy who seems to know what he's talking about.  So I clicked his link for his latest entry to see what else he's up to that might be useful to learn.  He says he now works for Facebook and is learning some more new languages I hadn't heard of, OCaml (ocaml.org) and Hack (hacklang.org).  WHY

I have enough trouble mastering Java, and other existing languages, as help wanted ads for Java developers say things like must also know PHP and JQuery..

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37881

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:01:59 -0800, Eric Douglas wrote:

> While not exactly Java related, I wanted to ask someone why.
> I've always assumed there are many spoken languages in the world because
> they were mostly developed independently, having no knowledge of other
> languages, aside from a language like English developed to standardize
> language as it's derived from many other languages.
>
I'm certain that the root forms of the original languages developed 
independently, but unlike some of the Amazonian tribal languages, not 
necessarily by small, isolated groups.

For instance the only really different European language is Hungarian.
The rest fall more or less into two groups: Southern and Northern 
European groups. AFAIK English started out as a dialect of the northern 
Euro language spoken by Angles, Jutes and Saxons, but picked up elements 
of Latin, Scandinavian and French from successive invasions.
   
> Now it would seem most people developing programming languages are aware
> of other programming languages, so why do they keep making new
> programming languages??
Several reasons:

- because they can
  hence any number of small, grizzly little languages 
  including APL and FORTH

- because there was only programming in binary (hence assemblers)

- because there was only assembler 
  Grace Hopper was behind MathMatic and FlowMatic

- because they wanted something better
  MathMatic inspired FORTRAN
  FlowMatic inspired COBOL

- because they wanted more structured languages
  hence Algol60 --> Algol68
        BCPL --> B --> C --> C++
        OO languages

- because they hated the language that got standardised
  hence Wirth writing Pascal as a 'better Algol60'
  
- because they thought they could write One Language To Rule Them All
  hence PL/1 (and ADA?)

- because they wanted a high level language on a small machine
  hence C (written originally on a PDP/8), 
        PL/M (on an 8080)
        PL/9 (PL/M derivative for 6809)

- to do something new 
  hence R, Simula, Mathmatica, JOSS, BASIC, SQL, awk, ....

> I have enough trouble mastering Java, and other existing languages, as
> help wanted ads for Java developers say things like must also know PHP
> and JQuery..
>
I think you'll find that many of us have used a variety of languages over 
time but probably only a handful at any point in time because machines 
change, and assemblers vanish because the target machines are obsolete.

I first learned Algol60 at university and have almost never used it since.

At my first few jobs I wrote almost entirely in PLAN assembler, COBOL
and FILETAB which could do complex things with serial files and was 
written as a set of decision tables

Then I spent a short time writing Sculptor (one of the so-called 4GL 
languages which I still use) plus C 6809 assembler and PL/9.

Then a project-oriented job where I used a variety of languages: COBOL, 
TAL, PL/1, RPG3, C, SQL  of a wide range of hardware.

Now I write in mostly Java and C with a bit of SQL, awk, Perl, PHP as 
needed plus (shortly) some PICAXE BASIC (a rather nasty compiled language 
used only by PICAXE single chip 8-bit computers.

I could say much the same about operating systems and their various 
command languages, where I started by pounding keys on a mainframe's 
control teletype and now do everything using RedHat Fedora Linux.

I'd be surprised if this summary is much different from anybody else who 
has spent their whole working life in IT.

Bottom line: program languages change, often seemingly because their 
designers can change them, or go out of fashion (BTW, I wonder if thats 
starting to happen to lambdas). So, if you stay in this game, you'll be 
continuously learning as languages change or get replaced. 


-- 
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie
          | dot org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37882

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 12:47:34 PM UTC-5, Kiwi User wrote:
> I'd be surprised if this summary is much different from anybody else who 
> has spent their whole working life in IT.
> 
> Bottom line: program languages change, often seemingly because their 
> designers can change them, or go out of fashion (BTW, I wonder if thats 
> starting to happen to lambdas). So, if you stay in this game, you'll be 
> continuously learning as languages change or get replaced. 
> 

smh

I thought it was annoying and pointless to learn Spanish when I already know English, yet we keep learning new languages for programming, some of which seem tedious pointless and redundant.  Powershell doesn't do anything I would need to do which I haven't already done in vbscript?  Java can do everything PHP can do?  I feel like they need a flowchart to show you which language to use based on what it does differently and/or better than any other language.

We get the revolutionary changes, going from Assembler to C, from JCL/COBOL/DB2 to Java/SQL.  Now I couldn't even guess how many languages there are, seems like thousands.  You could pick 5 and feel like that's all any company should ever need and the next job ad will have one you missed.  It's like imagine if it were spoken language roulette.  You bother to learn English, Spanish, French, German, Russian, and Chinese.  Then apply for interpreter jobs that are like sorry we needed someone who knows English, French, Russian, and Korean.

So, which languages do we need to learn?  Most companies don't seem to want to train on the job, and if you wait to learn until you see the wanted ad it will be filled before you know it well enough.

Heck, I started to list some languages I know of and Wikipedia already has a long and probably incomplete list, some of which sound ridiculous, most of which I know nothing about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages

Languages I've used at my current job include BBx/BBj (Business BASIC hybrid, check www.basis.com), vbscript, VB, Java, SQL, with a little bit of HTML and CSS.  At my previous job we had JCL, COBOL, SQL, PeopleSoft, SQR, and Unix shell scripts.

There's a computer girl on the new Macgyver series.  They asked her what was taking so long to hack data out of the local police station, said she hacked the NSA faster than that.  She said the NSA was running a current system, the police were running Fortran.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37884

On 2017-12-19 19:28, Eric Douglas wrote:
> I thought it was annoying and pointless to learn Spanish when I already know English, yet we keep learning new languages for programming, some of which seem tedious pointless and redundant.  Powershell doesn't do anything I would need to do which I haven't already done in vbscript?  Java can do everything PHP can do?  I feel like they need a flowchart to show you which language to use based on what it does differently and/or better than any other language.
> 
> We get the revolutionary changes, going from Assembler to C, from JCL/COBOL/DB2 to Java/SQL.  Now I couldn't even guess how many languages there are, seems like thousands.  You could pick 5 and feel like that's all any company should ever need and the next job ad will have one you missed.  It's like imagine if it were spoken language roulette.  You bother to learn English, Spanish, French, German, Russian, and Chinese.  Then apply for interpreter jobs that are like sorry we needed someone who knows English, French, Russian, and Korean.
> 
> So, which languages do we need to learn?  Most companies don't seem to want to train on the job, and if you wait to learn until you see the wanted ad it will be filled before you know it well enough.

You are, in my humble opinion, sorely mistaken as to what being a
programmer is about.

The natural language equivalent of a computer programmer is not the
translator.

It's the philologist.

-- 
DF.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37885

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:50:14 PM UTC-5, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> You are, in my humble opinion, sorely mistaken as to what being a
> programmer is about.
> 
> The natural language equivalent of a computer programmer is not the
> translator.
> 
> It's the philologist.
> 
> -- 
> DF.

I'm not familiar with the term but it sounds like a philologist is not so much a programmer, perhaps a systems analyst.  As I understand, a philologist like an analyst is one who seeks to understand, while a programmer like a writer is one who seeks to create.  While a good writer should apparently also be a philologist, I believe a good programmer should also be able to be an analyst.  Learning new things can be fun, and the constant learning of pointless new things sounds tedious.  Would you want to listen to someone spouting facts you did not know and will never need to know?  Why learn new programming languages if an existing language can already do what the new one does?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37886

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:49:16 +0100, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:

> The natural language equivalent of a computer programmer is not the
> translator.
> 
> It's the philologist.
>
I disagree. In literary terms computer programmer much closer in function 
to a novelist than a philologist.

A better match would be to say that the programming team of analyst + 
programmer(s) is similar to a naval architect + shipyard because both 
teams start with a requirement, design something to meet the requirement, 
construct it and then deliver it to the client for trials followed by 
productive use.


-- 
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie
          | dot org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37891

On 2017-12-19 20:17, Kiwi User wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:49:16 +0100, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> 
>> The natural language equivalent of a computer programmer is not the
>> translator.
>>
>> It's the philologist.
>>
> I disagree. In literary terms computer programmer much closer in function 
> to a novelist than a philologist.
> 
> A better match would be to say that the programming team of analyst + 
> programmer(s) is similar to a naval architect + shipyard because both 
> teams start with a requirement, design something to meet the requirement, 
> construct it and then deliver it to the client for trials followed by 
> productive use.

My emphasis wasn't on the programmer's actual act of production, but
rather on the prerequisites thereof, i.e. the structure of the knowledge
that goes into it.

Even so, I have to disagree right back with the novelist analogy. A good
novelist will perhaps have conscious knowledge of linguistic artifices,
but as far as the language itself is concerned, he will rather (I
reckon) have an intuitive, rather than an analytical, grasp of it; and
will be writing only in one. Not so the programmer; indeed, the latter
aspect was the very point Eric D. was making.

Definitions are a matter of gusto, of course, but to the extent that
philology is the study both of languages and of their usage, and as such
the study of human communication -- from a practical, rather than purely
abstract perspective -- it seems to me indeed much closer to our art.

At any rate, the point I was trying to make is that it is -- by far --
not enough to command different computer languages in order to be good
at programming, no more than knowing how to use a hammer, a saw, a
chisel, etc. is enough to be a good carpenter. Programming is about
communicating with computers, and requires understanding of how
computers work, separately from and in addition to knowing how to talk
to them. Indeed like the novelist who will need to understand the human
psyche, but unlike the novelist in that I doubt most of them will be
psychology majors, and that those who are will necessarily be the best
among them.

Knowing different ways to talk to computers can be helpful in
understanding computers, but is not the end of the story, nor even
strictly required. Imagine for instance trying to program without
understanding 2's complement representation. It doesn't matter how many
syntaxes or standard libraries you know, nor how well; if you don't
understand that, you're only gonna get so far.

-- 
DF.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37894

On 12/19/2017 1:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> I thought it was annoying and pointless to learn Spanish when I
> already know English, yet we keep learning new languages for
> programming, some of which seem tedious pointless and redundant.
> Powershell doesn't do anything I would need to do which I haven't
> already done in vbscript?  Java can do everything PHP can do?

There is a big difference between "able to do X" and "good choice
for X".

But in many cases there are multiple good options.

>                                                           I feel
> like they need a flowchart to show you which language to use based on
> what it does differently and/or better than any other language.

It would become a very complex flowchart.

> We get the revolutionary changes, going from Assembler to C, from
> JCL/COBOL/DB2 to Java/SQL.  Now I couldn't even guess how many
> languages there are, seems like thousands.

Actually used is probably less than 100.

>                                           You could pick 5 and feel
> like that's all any company should ever need and the next job ad will
> have one you missed.  It's like imagine if it were spoken language
> roulette.  You bother to learn English, Spanish, French, German,
> Russian, and Chinese.  Then apply for interpreter jobs that are like
> sorry we needed someone who knows English, French, Russian, and
> Korean.

If you know 5+ actual used languages that cover a spectrum of
language types well, then you should be OK job wise.

You will have skills for a big fraction of posted jobs.

And you will have demonstrated an ability to learn new
languages and new paradigms that should make a smart
hiring manager take you even if you need to learn
a language.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37895

On 12/19/2017 1:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> So, which languages do we need to learn?

Good question.

:-)

I would suggest 2+ from the big 4:
* Java
* C#
* PHP
* C/C++

And then pick one language from each of 3+
groups from the list below.

Client side:
- JavaScript

JVM languages:
- Scala
- Kotlin
- Groovy

Apple languages:
- Objective C
- Swift

Scientific programming:
- Python
- R
- MATLAB

System programming:
- C/C++
- Rust
- Go

Sysadm languages:
- bash
- PS
- Python

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37896

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:01:59 -0800, Eric Douglas wrote:
> While not exactly Java related, I wanted to ask someone why.
> I've always assumed there are many spoken languages in the world because
> they were mostly developed independently, having no knowledge of other
> languages, aside from a language like English developed to standardize
> language as it's derived from many other languages.

> Now it would seem most people developing programming languages are aware
> of other programming languages, so why do they keep making new
> programming languages??

Why are there more than one car brand that produces cars that can
bring people from A to B?

:-)

I can see at least 4 drivers for new programming languages:

1) New paradigms and new best practices for programming
    languages. We learn from our experience and design new
    and somewhat better languages based on that.

2) New domains creating requirements for new types of
    languages.

3) New usage patterns (typical much more large scale usage)
    requiring new languages.

4) Personal preferences. Even given exact same context two
    developers may prefer different languages.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37883

On 2017-12-19 17:01, Eric Douglas wrote:
> While not exactly Java related, I wanted to ask someone why.
> I've always assumed there are many spoken languages in the world because they were mostly developed independently, having no knowledge of other languages, aside from a language like English developed to standardize language as it's derived from many other languages.
> 
> Now it would seem most people developing programming languages are aware of other programming languages, so why do they keep making new programming languages??  I would have to assume either 1) None of the existing 50+ languages can do something they need to do, possibly on specific hardware, 2) existing languages that could do something they need to do couldn't do it efficiently enough, or 3) a matter of personal preference (write a new language from scratch because you want to create your own method names?)
> 
> I was doing a quick search today on the syntax for a new VBScript, because I know VBScript but it's been awhile since I've written one, and it does what I need to do so I don't care to learn PowerShell.  I found a nice blog from a guy who seems to know what he's talking about.  So I clicked his link for his latest entry to see what else he's up to that might be useful to learn.  He says he now works for Facebook and is learning some more new languages I hadn't heard of, OCaml (ocaml.org) and Hack (hacklang.org).  WHY
> 
> I have enough trouble mastering Java, and other existing languages, as help wanted ads for Java developers say things like must also know PHP and JQuery..
> 

Let me put it like this:

> I've always assumed there are many dishes in the world because they were mostly developed independently, having no knowledge of other dishes, aside from something like field rations developed to standardize dishes as they're derived from many other comestibles.
> 
> Now it would seem most people developing dishes are aware of other dishes, so why do they keep making new dishes??  I would have to assume either 1) They don't have the ingredients for any of the existing 50+ dishes, 2) existing dishes were difficult to cook in their kitchens, or 3) a matter of taste (create a new dish from scratch because you're not in the mood or don't like any of the other ones?)
> 
> I have enough trouble mastering fried eggs, and other existing dishes, as help wanted ads for cooks say things like must also know stew and roasts..

Full disclosure: I pop an aneurysm every time I hear the "reinventing
the wheel" canard crop up.

-- 
DF.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37887

On 12/19/2017 1:40 PM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> [...]
> Full disclosure: I pop an aneurysm every time I hear the "reinventing
> the wheel" canard crop up.

     A long-ago colleague opined that our company had invented a square
wheel, had found it unsatisfactory, and had upgraded to a triangular
wheel.  ("Upgraded" because there were 25% fewer bumps.)

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
Eleven hundred twenty-eight days to go.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37889

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:43:11 AM UTC-8, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 1:40 PM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> > [...]
> > Full disclosure: I pop an aneurysm every time I hear the "reinventing
> > the wheel" canard crop up.
> 
>      A long-ago colleague opined that our company had invented a square
> wheel, had found it unsatisfactory, and had upgraded to a triangular
> wheel.  ("Upgraded" because there were 25% fewer bumps.)

We could come up with a newer, better cliché than "reinventing the wheel", but why reinvent the wheel?

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37890

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:48:39 PM UTC-5, lewb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:43:11 AM UTC-8, Eric Sosman wrote:
> >      A long-ago colleague opined that our company had invented a square
> > wheel, had found it unsatisfactory, and had upgraded to a triangular
> > wheel.  ("Upgraded" because there were 25% fewer bumps.)
> 
I feel like I need to post that somewhere.  I have printed out 6 of the most epic Dilbert strips I could find that apply to my current job.


> We could come up with a newer, better cliché than "reinventing the wheel", but why reinvent the wheel?
> 
> -- 
> Lew

Apparently we don't reinvent the wheel because it is the first great man made invention (fire being from nature), which is ironic considering starting from scratch is also called going back to square one.

Apparently we haven't invented a more notable thing since sliced bread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37892

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:49:06 -0800, Eric Douglas wrote:

> Apparently we don't reinvent the wheel because it is the first great man
> made invention (fire being from nature), which is ironic considering
> starting from scratch is also called going back to square one.
>
I don't think it was the first great invention: that goes either to a 
boat (there are a number of civilisations who had boats but not wheels) 
or to the combination of horse-collar and plough. IIRC both of these 
preceded the wheel simply because both can be used without some 
approximation to a road, and a pack-animal is much superior to wheels 
where there is no road or other hard surface. 

You can't have cities without farming - and farming requires a plough, 
which works fine without a wheel, but is impossible without a horse-
collar, or its equivalent, fitted to whatever animal is being used to 
pull the plough. Once you have farming you get populations and cities for 
them to live in. Cities are popular places to places to travel between, 
so you need roads between them and, finally, you have someplace where a 
wheeled vehicle has advantages a sledge or a pack-animal. 

Without roads the camel train is a lot handier than carts, and a ship 
beats both if you have a sea handy. Just ask the Vikings!
 
> Apparently we haven't invented a more notable thing since sliced bread.
>
Sure we have. Aircraft and the refrigerator for two.


-- 
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie
          | dot org

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web