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

Groups > comp.programming > #6712 > unrolled thread

Programming

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  Programming HQM <harisqmega@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:07 -0700
    Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-16 16:40 +0100
      Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-17 09:16 -0700
        Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-17 17:53 +0100
          Re: Programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-17 20:31 +0100
            Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 00:57 +0100
              Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 05:36 +0100
                Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 08:13 -0700
                  Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 16:33 +0100
                    Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 16:44 +0100
                      Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 17:01 +0100
                        Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 09:16 -0700
                          Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 17:23 +0100
                            Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 09:28 -0700
                              Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 18:00 +0100
                        Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:28 +0100
                          Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 18:54 +0100
                            Re: Programming "Ant" <not@home.today> - 2016-07-18 21:12 +0100
                              Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 21:24 +0100
                                Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 14:49 -0700
                        Re: Programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-18 20:03 +0100
                          Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 20:24 +0100
                          Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 16:17 -0700
                        Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:30 -0400
                  Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:22 -0400
                Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 16:25 +0100
                Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 21:18 -0400
                  Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 03:35 +0100
                    Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:37 -0400
                      Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:50 +0100
                  Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:41 -0400
                    Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 03:31 -0400
                  Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 21:01 -0400
              Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 05:02 -0400
                Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 10:35 +0100
              Re: Programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-18 10:02 +0100
              Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 07:52 -0700
                Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 16:25 +0100
                  Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 08:32 -0700
                    Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 16:36 +0100
      Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 13:02 +0100
        Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 13:38 +0100
    Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 22:38 +0100
    Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-17 09:20 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#6756

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
<snip>
> ... So I'd hate to have
> to be the one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their
> machine just so that they can get some JavaScript experience.

What's the connection between IIS and JavaScript?

By the way, in connection to web apps and PHP why has the -S option not
come up yet?  Is it not there in a Windows install of PHP?

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#6757

On 18/07/16 20:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> <snip>
>> ... So I'd hate to have
>> to be the one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their
>> machine just so that they can get some JavaScript experience.
>
> What's the connection between IIS and JavaScript?

I was under the impression that JavaScript, although largely 
client-side, is to some extent server-dependent. It turns out that I was 
wrong - JavaScript can certainly be used server-side, but doesn't appear 
to require a server.

Your gentle correction is very much appreciated, and should be 
considered a fine example for others to follow.

> By the way, in connection to web apps and PHP why has the -S option not
> come up yet?  Is it not there in a Windows install of PHP?

It's certainly supported on Linux. I don't have a PHP install for 
Windows so I can't answer that question.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6761

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:03:58 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> By the way, in connection to web apps and PHP why has the -S option not
> come up yet?  Is it not there in a Windows install of PHP?

Because it was irrelevant to the OP?  Not to mention, way above the level of the conversation so far...

Anyway, FYI, running and managing PHP under IIS 7+ has got relatively simple, in most cases you don't even need to look into the php.ini file:

<https://www.microsoft.com/web/platform/phponwindows.aspx>
<https://phpmanager.codeplex.com/>

Julio

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

#6767

In article <nmiugc$dlp$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
> 
> On 18/07/16 16:44, BartC wrote:
> > On 18/07/2016 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 18/07/16 16:13, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> >
> >>> Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows
> >>> component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time,
> >>> but also on user systems at least since Win 98
> >>
> >> Interesting. I don't seem to be able to find it on any of my current
> >> Windows systems (XP, Vista, and W7). Nor could I find it on W10 (and
> >> yes, I did look) when a friend of mine bought a new laptop with W10
> >> installed. I looked in vain for IIS
> >
> >  From the Wikipedia entry on "Internet Information Services":
> >
> > "...It has been an integral part of the Windows NT family since Windows
> > NT 4.0, though it may be absent from some editions (e.g. Windows XP Home
> > edition), and is not active by default."
> >
> > (I didn't read the rest of the article as it is gobbledygook to me.)
> 
> Understandable. Well, I never found it, anyway, despite being motivated 
> to look (at various points in the past). So I'd hate to have to be the 
> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine just 
> so that they can get some JavaScript experience. By comparison, Apache 
> has been present and working on every Linux distro I've ever used, 
> except for Ubuntu (where it's just a "sudo apt-get install" away).

It's no real trick.  In Windows 7 it's Start/Control Panel/Programs/Turn 
Windows Features On and Off/ then pick the features you want.

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

#6766

In article <5054239e-14a9-46f3-93c0-8a8c5ba2542b@googlegroups.com>, 
julio@diegidio.name says...
> 
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:36:26 AM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
> > > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> > >> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
> > >> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
> > >
> > >    Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
> > >    be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.
> > 
> > That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to 
> > get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get 
> > a C compiler, FCOL! (I don't think you even get a Web server, do you?)
> 
> Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time, but also on user systems at least since Win 98 (if not since Win 95, I am not sure).  As well as gone is the time when their C/C++ compilers were a paid product:

For certain values.  If you're an individual they're free.  If you're a 
successful business they aren't.

> not to mention, now as then, if you dislike MS compilers, you can just 
> use gcc...  To be clear, I do not specifically endorse Microsoft and I 
> am even very critical with them for many things (though I am with many 
> other vendors, too, and with some even more), but really, you are just 
> talking of things you patently know jack about...
> 
> Julio

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

#6739

On 18/07/2016 05:36, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
>>> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
>>
>>    Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
>>    be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.
>
> That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to
> get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get
> a C compiler, FCOL!

You get a C runtime library in the form of MSVCRT.DLL.

If you need an actual compiler, there are half a dozen free ones that 
can be downloaded.

(But some of us can make use of the C library, and much of the Win32 
API, without a C compiler if necessary. Perhaps you need to be more of a 
real programmer to use Windows than Linux...)

Windows does give you a GUI out-of-the-box.

-- 
Bartc

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

#6762

In article <nmhmc7$f1f$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
> 
> On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> >> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
> >> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
> >
> >    Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
> >    be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.
> 
> That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to 
> get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get 
> a C compiler, FCOL! (I don't think you even get a Web server, do you?)
> 
> >    In fact, the best language for learners with little time is VBA.
> 
> Despite being a long-time Microsoft-sceptic, I must confess to a soft 
> spot for VB - and therefore for its children - as it was the product 
> that made Windows programming possible for ordinary folk. So I'm not 
> automatically going to push the anti-Windows button here. Nevertheless, 
> VBA (if I am not mistaken) requires Microsoft Office, doesn't it? And 
> that's a substantial investment for people who are just starting out. 
> But there is a macro language in LibreOffice, too, and LibreOffice is 
> free (and cross-platform).

Vb and c# are included with Windows.  You have to know where to look for 
them (they're buried down in the .Net folder heirarchy--start at 
"Windows\Microsoft.Net" and search for "vbc.exe" and "csc.exe") and it's 
the compilers and libraries only, no IDE or GUI builder or the like so 
coding GUI applications is a learning experience in a major way.

Visual Studio is free for personal use (personal includes development of 
commercial applications as long as you are working alone or in a group 
of 5 or less and not making more than a million a year, or are 
developing Open Source).  That gets you c, c++, vb, c#, f#, and I forget 
what else plus the IDE and associated utilities.

But quite frankly, the 7 bucks a month for Office is just not that 
"substantial" an "investment".  So you see one less movie a month or 
have two less Starbucks or one less Big Mac.

> >    . It has a GUI builder where one can easily draw a simple
> >    calculator with two text boxes and one push button on the screen
> >    (a "user form"), and then add /one/ small line of code to the button
> >
> > TextBox2 = 2 * TextBox1
> >
> >    to have programmed a full-blown calculator that will be able
> >    to double many numbers at the push of a button.
> 
> That's fine if you know what to write. (It's easy for programmers to 
> forget what it was like not knowing how to write programs.) But of 
> course that's going to be true of any route into programming - at some 
> point, the learner has to learn something, and learning can be hard work.

The thing about VBA is that you can turn on the macro recorder, go 
through a sequence of actions in the application, stop the recorder, and 
look at what it recorded--whatever it got will be valid vba code.  
Probably not very _good_ code and likely doesn't do what you want it to 
do, so figuring out how to get from where is to where you want it to be 
is the challenge and the way that it teaches you to code.
 
> >    And one can combine this with all the power of applications such
> >    as Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel, or Microsoft® Access
> >    to quickly solve many problems.
> 
> Or indeed /cause/ many problems. :-)

Ever use Excel as a data-entry screen?  Beats reinventing the wheel and 
there are so many means of validation available that it's kind of nuts.

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

#6763

On 19/07/16 02:18, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nmhmc7$f1f$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
>>
>> On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
>>>> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
>>>
>>>     Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
>>>     be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.
>>
>> That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to
>> get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get
>> a C compiler, FCOL! (I don't think you even get a Web server, do you?)
>>
>>>     In fact, the best language for learners with little time is VBA.
>>
>> Despite being a long-time Microsoft-sceptic, I must confess to a soft
>> spot for VB - and therefore for its children - as it was the product
>> that made Windows programming possible for ordinary folk. So I'm not
>> automatically going to push the anti-Windows button here. Nevertheless,
>> VBA (if I am not mistaken) requires Microsoft Office, doesn't it? And
>> that's a substantial investment for people who are just starting out.
>> But there is a macro language in LibreOffice, too, and LibreOffice is
>> free (and cross-platform).
>
> Vb and c# are included with Windows.  You have to know where to look for
> them (they're buried down in the .Net folder heirarchy--start at
> "Windows\Microsoft.Net" and search for "vbc.exe" and "csc.exe") and it's
> the compilers and libraries only, no IDE or GUI builder or the like so
> coding GUI applications is a learning experience in a major way.

Personally, I wouldn't bother, since I have the vastly superior C++ 
Builder. But, without the GUI, why would /anyone/ bother? The whole 
point of VB is its GUI! Trust Microsoft to remove the one worthwhile 
thing about the product.

> Visual Studio is free for personal use (personal includes development of
> commercial applications as long as you are working alone or in a group
> of 5 or less and not making more than a million a year, or are
> developing Open Source).  That gets you c, c++, vb, c#, f#, and I forget
> what else plus the IDE and associated utilities.

Interesting that they forbid Open Source development. That will, I 
think, dissuade a lot of people from using VS.

> But quite frankly, the 7 bucks a month for Office is just not that
> "substantial" an "investment".  So you see one less movie a month or
> have two less Starbucks or one less Big Mac.

"7 bucks a month" is interesting. I can see why people might think 
"okay, I'll pay £100 or $100 or whatever, and then I've got Office" even 
though there is a perfectly good free alternative. But a monthly payment 
/forever/? And if you skip a payment, presumably it stops working? 
LibreOffice never looked so good!

>>>     . It has a GUI builder where one can easily draw a simple
>>>     calculator with two text boxes and one push button on the screen
>>>     (a "user form"), and then add /one/ small line of code to the button
>>>
>>> TextBox2 = 2 * TextBox1
>>>
>>>     to have programmed a full-blown calculator that will be able
>>>     to double many numbers at the push of a button.
>>
>> That's fine if you know what to write. (It's easy for programmers to
>> forget what it was like not knowing how to write programs.) But of
>> course that's going to be true of any route into programming - at some
>> point, the learner has to learn something, and learning can be hard work.
>
> The thing about VBA is that you can turn on the macro recorder, go
> through a sequence of actions in the application, stop the recorder, and
> look at what it recorded--whatever it got will be valid vba code.
> Probably not very _good_ code and likely doesn't do what you want it to
> do, so figuring out how to get from where is to where you want it to be
> is the challenge and the way that it teaches you to code.

Oh, I'd allowed myself to forget about the macro recorder. I did use it 
to good effect a year or three back, but - as you say - to make it do 
precisely what's required can involve judicious use of the electronic 
equivalent of a toffee-hammer.

>>>     And one can combine this with all the power of applications such
>>>     as Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel, or Microsoft® Access
>>>     to quickly solve many problems.
>>
>> Or indeed /cause/ many problems. :-)
>
> Ever use Excel as a data-entry screen?

Yep, about twelve years ago. Ouch.

> Beats reinventing the wheel

You think so? :-)

> and
> there are so many means of validation available that it's kind of nuts.

I'd rather gnaw off my own leg than go through that again.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6768

In article <nmk3lr$n3k$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
> 
> On 19/07/16 02:18, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <nmhmc7$f1f$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
> >>
> >> On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> >>>> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
> >>>> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
> >>>
> >>>     Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
> >>>     be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.
> >>
> >> That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to
> >> get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get
> >> a C compiler, FCOL! (I don't think you even get a Web server, do you?)
> >>
> >>>     In fact, the best language for learners with little time is VBA.
> >>
> >> Despite being a long-time Microsoft-sceptic, I must confess to a soft
> >> spot for VB - and therefore for its children - as it was the product
> >> that made Windows programming possible for ordinary folk. So I'm not
> >> automatically going to push the anti-Windows button here. Nevertheless,
> >> VBA (if I am not mistaken) requires Microsoft Office, doesn't it? And
> >> that's a substantial investment for people who are just starting out.
> >> But there is a macro language in LibreOffice, too, and LibreOffice is
> >> free (and cross-platform).
> >
> > Vb and c# are included with Windows.  You have to know where to look for
> > them (they're buried down in the .Net folder heirarchy--start at
> > "Windows\Microsoft.Net" and search for "vbc.exe" and "csc.exe") and it's
> > the compilers and libraries only, no IDE or GUI builder or the like so
> > coding GUI applications is a learning experience in a major way.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't bother, since I have the vastly superior C++ 
> Builder. But, without the GUI, why would /anyone/ bother? The whole 
> point of VB is its GUI! Trust Microsoft to remove the one worthwhile 
> thing about the product.

The GUI is there.  What is not there is the tools to build one by 
dragging out of a toolbox.  You have to actually know the underlying 
language.
 
> > Visual Studio is free for personal use (personal includes development of
> > commercial applications as long as you are working alone or in a group
> > of 5 or less and not making more than a million a year, or are
> > developing Open Source).  That gets you c, c++, vb, c#, f#, and I forget
> > what else plus the IDE and associated utilities.
> 
> Interesting that they forbid Open Source development. That will, I 
> think, dissuade a lot of people from using VS.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?  Open Source development is 
one of the things they explicitly ALLOW.
> 
> > But quite frankly, the 7 bucks a month for Office is just not that
> > "substantial" an "investment".  So you see one less movie a month or
> > have two less Starbucks or one less Big Mac.
> 
> "7 bucks a month" is interesting. I can see why people might think 
> "okay, I'll pay £100 or $100 or whatever, and then I've got Office" even 
> though there is a perfectly good free alternative. But a monthly payment 
> /forever/? And if you skip a payment, presumably it stops working? 
> LibreOffice never looked so good!

Then pay the 150 bucks up front.

> >>>     . It has a GUI builder where one can easily draw a simple
> >>>     calculator with two text boxes and one push button on the screen
> >>>     (a "user form"), and then add /one/ small line of code to the button
> >>>
> >>> TextBox2 = 2 * TextBox1
> >>>
> >>>     to have programmed a full-blown calculator that will be able
> >>>     to double many numbers at the push of a button.
> >>
> >> That's fine if you know what to write. (It's easy for programmers to
> >> forget what it was like not knowing how to write programs.) But of
> >> course that's going to be true of any route into programming - at some
> >> point, the learner has to learn something, and learning can be hard work.
> >
> > The thing about VBA is that you can turn on the macro recorder, go
> > through a sequence of actions in the application, stop the recorder, and
> > look at what it recorded--whatever it got will be valid vba code.
> > Probably not very _good_ code and likely doesn't do what you want it to
> > do, so figuring out how to get from where is to where you want it to be
> > is the challenge and the way that it teaches you to code.
> 
> Oh, I'd allowed myself to forget about the macro recorder. I did use it 
> to good effect a year or three back, but - as you say - to make it do 
> precisely what's required can involve judicious use of the electronic 
> equivalent of a toffee-hammer.
> 
> >>>     And one can combine this with all the power of applications such
> >>>     as Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel, or Microsoft® Access
> >>>     to quickly solve many problems.
> >>
> >> Or indeed /cause/ many problems. :-)
> >
> > Ever use Excel as a data-entry screen?
> 
> Yep, about twelve years ago. Ouch.

That was 12 years ago.
 
> > Beats reinventing the wheel
> 
> You think so? :-)

Yes.  Given the choice between essentially writing a spreadsheet page 
and using one that is already there for the using, it's a lot easier to 
use the one that's there.

> 
> > and
> > there are so many means of validation available that it's kind of nuts.
> 
> I'd rather gnaw off my own leg than go through that again.

If you think that VBA is that difficult, you shouldn't go on about "real 
programmers".

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

#6770

On 20/07/16 00:37, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nmk3lr$n3k$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
>>
<snip>
>> I'd rather gnaw off my own leg than go through that again.
>
> If you think that VBA is that difficult, you shouldn't go on about "real
> programmers".

<shrug> It's not that it's difficult. It's that it's unpleasant.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6769

In article <csharp-20160719042609@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, 
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de says...
> 
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> >"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> >>and c# are included with Windows.
> >That was true until C# 5.0.
> 
>   Or, at least, one can say that it is no longer
>   true for C# 6.0.

So?

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

#6773

In article <compiler-20160720043925@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, 
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de says...
> 
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> >In article <csharp-20160719042609@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, 
> >ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de says...
> >>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> >>>"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>and c# are included with Windows.
> >>>That was true until C# 5.0.
> >>Or, at least, one can say that it is no longer
> >>true for C# 6.0.
> >So?
> 
>   When an up-to-date compiler is part of the dotnet runtime,
>   you can write scripts that will depend on the compiler being
>   available under an average Windows installation.
> 
>   In several of my batch files that are intended to run on
>   every average recent Windows computer, I search for the
>   compiler with
> 
> @if exist C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v3.5\csc.exe ^
> set CSC=C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v3.5\csc.exe 
> @if exist C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319\csc.exe ^
> set CSC=C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319\csc.exe 
> 
>   and then use the compiler.
> 
>   Now, it seems that I will have to stop to use CSC in my
>   Windows batch files, because I cannot assume anymore that a
>   current version of the compiler will be there on an average
>   Windows system.

Why don't you just compile the code and provide the executable?

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

#6771

In article <csharp-20160719042609@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, 
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de says...
> 
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> >"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> >>and c# are included with Windows.
> >That was true until C# 5.0.
> 
>   Or, at least, one can say that it is no longer
>   true for C# 6.0.

Which is now open source hosted on github.

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

#6730

In article <nmh60m$ah6$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
> 
> On 17/07/16 20:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> >
> >> On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
> >>>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
> >>>>
> >>>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
> >>>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
> >>>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
> >>>> want to go.
> >>>
> >>> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.
> >>
> >> Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and
> >> skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.
> >
> > Your points got exactly the level of reasoned argument that they
> > deserve.  (I thought you were joking so I didn't say anything first time
> > round.)
> 
> Ouch. No, I wasn't joking.
> 
> I answered as I did because the tone of the OP gave me the impression 
> that the OP wanted to learn programming without a lot of investment of 
> effort on his part ("tell me the easiest way"). There is no question 
> whatsoever in my mind that HTML is the easiest-to-learn mainstream 
> computer language (and note that I have carefully avoided saying 
> "programming language"). With only a modicum of knowledge you can 
> produce a reasonable product quite quickly. Then all you have to do to 
> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start 
> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing 
> loops and stuff. And that's quite a gentle entry into the world of 
> programming, which I would argue constitutes a reasonable answer to "the 
> easiest way".
> 
> I question your claim, sir.

One of the dumb ways to blow a job interview is to go off about things 
like "Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
written in VB.NET or C#".

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

#6732

On 18/07/16 10:02, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nmh60m$ah6$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
>>
>> On 17/07/16 20:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
>>>>>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
>>>>>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
>>>>>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
>>>>>> want to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and
>>>> skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.
>>>
>>> Your points got exactly the level of reasoned argument that they
>>> deserve.  (I thought you were joking so I didn't say anything first time
>>> round.)
>>
>> Ouch. No, I wasn't joking.
>>
>> I answered as I did because the tone of the OP gave me the impression
>> that the OP wanted to learn programming without a lot of investment of
>> effort on his part ("tell me the easiest way"). There is no question
>> whatsoever in my mind that HTML is the easiest-to-learn mainstream
>> computer language (and note that I have carefully avoided saying
>> "programming language"). With only a modicum of knowledge you can
>> produce a reasonable product quite quickly. Then all you have to do to
>> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
>> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
>> loops and stuff. And that's quite a gentle entry into the world of
>> programming, which I would argue constitutes a reasonable answer to "the
>> easiest way".
>>
>> I question your claim, sir.
>
> One of the dumb ways to blow a job interview is to go off about things
> like "Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
> written in VB.NET or C#".

Oh, /that/? Well, it's true. And Usenet isn't a job interview. Among 
other things, it's a place for going off about things. :-)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6731

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 17/07/16 20:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
>>>>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
>>>>>
>>>>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
>>>>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
>>>>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
>>>>> want to go.
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.
>>>
>>> Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and
>>> skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.
>>
>> Your points got exactly the level of reasoned argument that they
>> deserve.  (I thought you were joking so I didn't say anything first time
>> round.)
>
> Ouch. No, I wasn't joking.
>
> I answered as I did because the tone of the OP gave me the impression
> that the OP wanted to learn programming without a lot of investment of
> effort on his part ("tell me the easiest way"). There is no question
> whatsoever in my mind that HTML is the easiest-to-learn mainstream
> computer language (and note that I have carefully avoided saying
> "programming language"). With only a modicum of knowledge you can
> produce a reasonable product quite quickly. Then all you have to do to
> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can
> start playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it
> you're doing loops and stuff. And that's quite a gentle entry into the
> world of programming, which I would argue constitutes a reasonable
> answer to "the easiest way".
>
> I question your claim, sir.

I doubt that's the part Julio Di Egidio was talking about -- it's
certainly not what I though you were joking about.

-- 
Ben.

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

#6736

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 1:57:12 AM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 17/07/16 20:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> >> On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
> >>>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
> >>>>
> >>>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
> >>>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
> >>>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
> >>>> want to go.
> >>>
> >>> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.
> >>
> >> Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and
> >> skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.
> >
> > Your points got exactly the level of reasoned argument that they
> > deserve.  (I thought you were joking so I didn't say anything first time
> > round.)
> 
> Ouch. No, I wasn't joking.
> 
> I answered as I did because the tone of the OP gave me the impression 
> that the OP wanted to learn programming without a lot of investment of 
> effort on his part ("tell me the easiest way"). There is no question 
> whatsoever in my mind that HTML is the easiest-to-learn mainstream 
> computer language (and note that I have carefully avoided saying 
> "programming language"). With only a modicum of knowledge you can 
> produce a reasonable product quite quickly.

OK, few explanations:

With HTML alone, all one can build is static pages: not even a contact form, i.e. not even the web of the early days.  In particular, the fact that you call JavaScript "a blind alley" (which was snipped) is *outmost nonsense*.  JS was important already at the time and is more and more fundamental for web-based applications nowadays (and not only for that, as you can use it server-side as well).  It is also a *wonderful* (functional) language, as well as a great way (the HTML/CSS/JS combination) to get started...

OTOH, no real software professional would be bashing Microsoft which, for the chronicle, to today still powers 90%+ of the businesses around the globe: and which, by the way, is not nearly as bad as the cult followers and hooligans of the various kinds like to insist it is.

That said, and disregarding the OP for a moment, there is no such thing as "the best way" or even just "the best way to get started": yes, even PHP is good, or BASIC, or HyperTalk, or what have you...  The point being that there are so many paradigms, languages, systems and frameworks that really this is a journey that is a life-time long and where the goal is to be able to work with anything and everything, so what you pick today is in no way limiting to the so many things that you will need to learn and will be learning along the way: that and the focus on solving real-world problems, not a focus on the technology and tools, makes the real "programmer".

Indeed, the focus on technology and tools rather than on the needs and social impact is the consequence of the dumbing down of our profession (we used to be "software consultants" who knew that there is more to programming than just programming) and the huge speculations that, following the so called democratisation of programming, were started in the late nineties: by the vendors first and then by the big consulting firms, nowadays selling under the hijacked name of Agility what is pure ad-hoc and upside-down nonsense and the market of fake solutions.  And more and in more detail could be said, on the never ending software crisis... but this now is another story which I'll leave for another day.

Too many things to say, I just hope that clarifies the general intent.

All the best,

Julio

> Then all you have to do to 
> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start 
> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing 
> loops and stuff. And that's quite a gentle entry into the world of 
> programming, which I would argue constitutes a reasonable answer to "the 
> easiest way".
> 
> I question your claim, sir.

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

#6738

On 18/07/16 15:52, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 1:57:12 AM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 17/07/16 20:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>> On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
>>>>>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
>>>>>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
>>>>>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
>>>>>> want to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and
>>>> skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.
>>>
>>> Your points got exactly the level of reasoned argument that they
>>> deserve.  (I thought you were joking so I didn't say anything first time
>>> round.)
>>
>> Ouch. No, I wasn't joking.
>>
>> I answered as I did because the tone of the OP gave me the impression
>> that the OP wanted to learn programming without a lot of investment of
>> effort on his part ("tell me the easiest way"). There is no question
>> whatsoever in my mind that HTML is the easiest-to-learn mainstream
>> computer language (and note that I have carefully avoided saying
>> "programming language"). With only a modicum of knowledge you can
>> produce a reasonable product quite quickly.
>
> OK, few explanations:
>
> With HTML alone, all one can build is static pages: not
 > even a contact form, i.e. not even the web of the early
 > days.

Absolutely true, except that "static pages" are quite a cool thing to be 
able to do if you've never made a computer do anything before, and it 
gets the learner used to the idea of nesting, a very important concept 
in programming.

> In particular, the fact that you call JavaScript
 > "a blind alley" (which was snipped) is *outmost nonsense*.

If your goal is only to write Web apps, then I'd agree. But the OP 
didn't say he wanted to write Web apps. He said he wanted to write apps. 
So we'd want to steer him in the direction of a more conventional 
programming language, I think.

> JS was important already at the time and is more and more
 > fundamental for web-based applications nowadays (and not
 > only for that, as you can use it server-side as well).

Sure, I agree, but unless I'm very much mistaken it is /only/ used in 
Web apps. (Also, it's a bit chaotic for my tastes.)

> It is also a *wonderful* (functional) language, as well
 > as a great way (the HTML/CSS/JS combination) to get started...

So now you're agreeing with the "bullshit" that HTML is a good place to 
start. Good. (Or were you going to start with JavaScript and CSS, and 
then move on to HTML later on? FCOL!)

> OTOH, no real software professional would be bashing
 > Microsoft

Shades of "no true Scotsman".

> That said, and disregarding the OP for a moment, there
 > is no such thing as "the best way" or even just
 > "the best way to get started":

And I think you'll find I made no such claim.

One of the most important characteristics of a real software 
professional is an eye for detail. You might want to give some thought 
to that. I'm done with you. Thanks for playing.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6740

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 5:25:07 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> unless I'm very much mistaken

Yes, you are: pretty much on the whole line.

> I'm done with you. Thanks for playing.

I wasn't playing...

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#6742

On 18/07/16 16:32, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 5:25:07 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> unless I'm very much mistaken
>
> Yes, you are: pretty much on the whole line.

Feel free to expound on that.

>
>> I'm done with you. Thanks for playing.
>
> I wasn't playing...

And yet you were contriving to lose.

> *Plonk*

Yet another well-constructed argument. I guess you won't be justifying 
your claim (above), then.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web