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

Groups > comp.programming > #9626 > unrolled thread

Re: C is not a low level language

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:40 +0800
    Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 05:16 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:20 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:24 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 19:45 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 13:09 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:38 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:18 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 17:21 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:43 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:17 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:02 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 19:26 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 21:36 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:10 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:25 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:24 +0000
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 17:04 +0100
                                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:52 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 17:59 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 08:46 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:36 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 10:13 +0100
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 09:56 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:12 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:20 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:36 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:29 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:55 +0200
                              Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:24 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:03 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:58 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:40 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:01 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:55 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:31 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:42 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-24 17:56 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:23 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:58 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:52 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:31 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 14:01 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 23:04 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800
                    Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:07 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 20:50 +0100
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:04 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:25 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-28 11:56 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-28 19:45 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 17:55 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:03 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 11:25 -0800
                      Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 19:30 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-25 20:16 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:53 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 09:49 +0200
      Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:07 +0100
        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:59 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:57 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 09:59 +0000
    Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 19:54 +1300
      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 07:56 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 21:58 +1300
          Re: C is not a low level language "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:57 +0100
          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:13 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:47 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:48 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:42 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 07:15 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:25 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:03 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 12:10 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 17:58 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0100
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:18 +0200
              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:35 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:44 +0000
                  Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:29 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 14:26 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:08 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:08 +0200
                        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 18:00 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-27 22:37 -0800
                        Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 02:25 -0800
                  Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:27 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:36 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:05 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:20 +0200
                      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 23:02 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:41 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 12:20 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 14:01 +0100
                          Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-26 08:48 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 19:20 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:04 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language lonelydad <lonelydad58@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 14:44 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language "U-laptop\\Norah" <Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> - 2019-02-27 16:16 -0600
            Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-03-01 12:12 +1300
              Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-03-01 00:19 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 19:59 -0800
          Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:10 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:02 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2019-02-26 00:37 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 19:09 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:30 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:31 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:16 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:22 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:51 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 07:20 -0800
            Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:35 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 11:05 -0500
              Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:39 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 19:11 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 09:41 -0500
                  Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:53 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:19 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-25 16:38 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 11:20 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 17:49 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:18 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                          Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:25 +0200
                            Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:45 +0200
                                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-26 09:11 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:23 +0100
                            Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                              Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 17:57 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 17:42 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 22:33 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:30 +0100
                      Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                      Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:52 -0800
                    Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 15:20 +0000
                      Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:47 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:50 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:59 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:15 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 18:38 +0000
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:49 +0200
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:55 +0200
                              Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 16:29 +0000
                                Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-04 23:43 -0500
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 18:16 +0000
                        Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0000
                          Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:05 -0500
                            Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 00:51 -0600
                              Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 10:58 +0100
                                Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 10:53 -0600
                                  Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 17:49 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 18:11 +0000
                                    Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 18:24 +0000
                                  Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:24 +0100
                                    Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:44 +0100
                        Re: C is not a low level language nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-26 06:33 +0000
                    Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
          Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 20:03 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:56 -0800
    Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:43 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 14:14 +0800
        Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:45 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 19:04 +0800

Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9  Next page →

#9778

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:41:44 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:

> On 26/02/2019 01:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:20:50 +0200

> > or you have some learning
> > to do.
> 
> If you're starting a job and *then* start learning the language, you're
> wasting your employer's time.

	Not necessarily - I have had to learn languages on the job before,
twice it was even the language I was hired to write in (C when I was an
experienced BCPL programmer (among many other languages) and C programmers
were rare, years later it was PHP).

> And not knowing the language that's in use locally when you begin the
> job seems like a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> If you see a job posting for "C programmer" and you come along and say
> "I'm not really a C programmer, but I've been doing a lot of BASIC these
> past few years so I'm definitely a programmer", then you're not doing it
> right...

	Quite so - OTOH when you have extensive experience in many
languages and the one used in house is similar to ones you know and your
other skills are in demand then picking up a new language on the job may
(and has for me) be perfectly acceptable. Often I have picked up a language
in one job because there was a sudden need for someone to do so and I could
do it quickly and then used it as the main language in a later job.

	General rules are always wrong - including this one :)

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9779

On 26/02/2019 11:41, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 26/02/2019 01:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:20:50 +0200
>> Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/02/2019 17:05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> 	Q: Which is the right language to program professionally
>>>> 	A: The one your employer tells you to use
>>>
>>> Actually, if that happens, either convince them otherwise or quit.
>>>
>>> Q: Which is the right language to program professionally?
>>> A: The one you're fluent in and that seems a good fit for the task at
>>> hand.
>>
>> 	If you're not fluent in the language of choice at your place of
>> employment then you are either in the wrong place
> 
> Yes, that was my point.
> 
>> or you have some learning
>> to do.
> 
> If you're starting a job and *then* start learning the language, you're
> wasting your employer's time.

That depends very much on the situation.  If you are employed as one cog
in a large mechanism, then it may be true.  If you are one of a small
group, and there is no external reason (such as customer requirement) to
pick a given language, then you should be free to recommend other
languages if you justify them being a better choice.  It is then up to
the manager to balance your reasoning, along with things like existing
code, other employee's skills, etc., and make the decision.  But if you
are convinced that a different language is a better choice (perhaps due
to your expertise) and you don't suggest it, you are wasting your
employer's resources.

And if it turns out that you need to learn a new language, then that is
factored into the costs.  If you have learned to program, as distinct
from merely learned how to code in Java, C, or whatever, then learning a
new programming language is usually not that time consuming.  If the
project is going to run over several months, then a few weeks to get up
to speed on the language is maybe within budget.

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

#9782

"Wouter Verhelst" <w@uter.be> wrote

| If you're starting a job and *then* start learning the language, you're
| wasting your employer's time.
|

  Interesting comment. A few years ago, and still
today in many places, that would be a cynical,
selfish comment. It implies no relationship or
loyalty between employer and employee. That
might be typical in the programming world.
Amorality is typical in the programming world.
But it's not relevant logic in many places.
Many people, from housepainters to physicians,
typically get paid, on-the-job training. No one
starts out proficient at a professional level.

   But in a culture
with few benefits, little loyalty, and tech companies
trying to redefine minimum wage grunt work as
"contracting", there isn't much room for training.
Since employees can't look forward to a pension,
or even to their company existing in 5 years,
there's no reason for them not to look for a better
job on a constant basis. And people like that are
not worth the effort to train.

  What surprises me the most is not the selfishness
but the naive idealism of people who think it's classy
and futuristic to get paid $4/hour with no benefits,
as a non-union taxi driver for Uber or Lyft. Or who think
they're incredibly lucky to work at Google, the ultimate
sleazy spyware company, where the culture assumes
they have no life outside of work. That stuff is not
new and futuristic. It's why we [used to] have unions.

  Then the same people allow Facebook to own their
social life and sell it back to them, while they allow
Apple, Google, Amazon and numerous dataminers to
have them wearing a tracking collar. People in Whole
Foods now *show off* that they're Amazoniacs on
a leash. Then they look at me with a pitying expression
because I'm not diddling a cellphone and don't have
an Amazon account: "Poor guy. Just can't adapt.
Look, these apples that were $1/# last week are now
$3/#. But I get them for $2/# with my Amazon account.
Can't beat that!" :)

  I'd say you're in the wrong business, maybe even
the wrong life, if you work for someone else and
there's no humanity or generosity between yourself
and your employer. In that case you're no more
than an adjustable wrench -- a tool to be picked
up and discarded as the situation dictates. And you're
spending the majority of your time in that role. You
might consider starting your own business. When
you have 100 bosses [customers/clients], none has
the power to bend you to their will. You don't have
to sacrifice dignity or conscience for a paycheck.
Though self-employment is not for everyone. You
have to be self-motivated, responsible, a good
communicator, and willing to live without a safety
net. But.... come to think of it.... it sounds like you're
already living without a safety net. So what's to lose? 

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

#9790

Den 2019-02-26 kl. 11:41, skrev Wouter Verhelst:
> If you're starting a job and*then*  start learning the language, you're
> wasting your employer's time.

Nah, that depends.
Given that the work is to do stuff in a fairly large/complex system,
the language is usually not the barrier, but best practices to do 
changes in *that* system are.


-- 
Björn

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

#9711

On 2019-02-25 03:35, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 15:48, Mayayana wrote:
>> 2) What do you need in the result?
>>
>>    Anything that compiles to native code is efficient. Java
>> and .Net are bloated messes on desktop but just the
>> ticket server-side. Script is quick and very useful,
>> but it's interpreted, with limited data types, and therefore
>> not suited for heavy lifting. They all have their pros and
>> cons. Well, except maybe Perl. That's just too ugly to be
>> allowed to survive. :)
> 
> Perl allows line-noise code, but then so does C.
> 
> Honestly, it's perfectly possible to write readable Perl code that is
> easily maintained.

I believe you: my son was learning Perl before he died, I could  make 
maybe 10-20% sense of what he wrote, even though I didn't "know" Perl. 
But whatever language you use, someone else will have to maintain your 
code after you're gone, so write the comments for them, not for yourself.

> Like with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

:-)

I'd add, the experienced eye sees the most beauty.

A computer language isn't a language. Formatting code to make it easier 
for humans to use doesn't make it a language. Computer code at root 
describes switching sequences. That's all. Recall that the very first 
machines were coded by rerouting cables between switches.

Human languages don't code, they present what (for want of a better 
phrase) I call "intersecting ambiguities". That's why you can understand 
sentences that include words you've never encountered before (it's how 
we learned our native language in the first place). It's why we can 
shift word-usage, and be fairly confident that our hearers and readers 
will get at least enough of what we intend that they can ask good 
questions about what we mean.

The ambiguities etc of human language are paradoxically also the reason 
that statistical and pattern analysis of samples has produced successful 
translation AIs, and AIs that write boilerplate new reports (eg, for 
sports and business). The most recent language-writing AI can imitate 
your personal style wll enough that it's impossible for the casual 
reader to detect a forgery. That will not end well.

Have a good day, if you can,

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going 
somewhere. (Groucho Marx)

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

#9646

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in
news:7qm47e99prt8o5ga9phi6mofn72ek248i2@4ax.com: 

> 
> It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
> remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
> had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
> succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
> to the original five lines.

That's what source code comments are for. I was doing a particulary 
tricky bit of PL/1 coding using a subfunction library written by another 
part of the group. I wound up having about three lines of documentation 
for every line of program code. When I had to go back and change the 
program later that same year it was very helpful to put me back in the 
mindset I had when I was writing the code. 

Source code documentation just costs some storage space and makes larger 
printouts, but doesn't affect run-time speed or efficiency at all, and is 
very useful when trying to figure out what the h*ll you were thinking 
when you wrote it the first time.

The other thing that really helped me was that at my first programming 
job the boss taught us all the HIPO programming method. Hierarchical 
Input Process Output. A structured way to develop code [without that 
stupid 'no goto' rule]. It really helped me to write good code that was 
easily understandable if/when I had to come back to it. And yes, I 
understand that there are some languages, lige AP/L, that are essentially 
undocumentable, but at least one can describe what was being attempted in 
that line of code. 

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

#9796

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> writes:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
> remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
> had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
> succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
> to the original five lines.

Do you remember the one line version? Or any other interesting details?

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

#9807

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:16:30 -0600, "U-laptop\\Norah"
<Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
>> remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
>> had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
>> succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
>> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
>> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
>> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
>> to the original five lines.
>
>Do you remember the one line version? Or any other interesting details?

After 25 years? You gotta be joking.   :-)
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

#9808

On 28/02/2019 23:12, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:16:30 -0600, "U-laptop\\Norah"
> <Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> wrote:
> 
>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> It's more than 25 years since I wrote C code but I will always
>>> remember the first time I encountered the problem I have hinted at. I
>>> had written 5 lines of code but then over the next few days after
>>> succeeding revisions I had reduced the 5 lines to only one which did
>>> the same thing as the original 5. I came back to it a few months later
>>> and found that I was damned if I could quite work out what that one
>>> line of code was supposed to be doing. I never did manage to get back
>>> to the original five lines.
>>
>> Do you remember the one line version? Or any other interesting details?
> 
> After 25 years? You gotta be joking.   :-)

Just to get you heading in the right direction, it probably ended in a 
semicolon;

-- 
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]

#9678

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

[snip]

>	For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not
>'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good
>but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of
>development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially
>maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times
>faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden
>bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care.

     I prefer a language that is human-oriented.  I would rather have
something run a bit more slowly but be safer.  Most of the time, it
does not matter (to me or mine) much anyway.  If it does, then I worry
about optimisation.

>	It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low
>level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient
>programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too
>soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things
>producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're
>supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that
>*are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces
>of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain.

     Exactly.  I write something reasonable; it usually is fast
enough.  If not, only then I optimise.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#9719

On 25 Feb 2019, Gene Wirchenko wrote
(in article<brp67eljkpv5djl5vqtun1fn6k25oqofjc@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net>  wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not
> > 'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good
> > but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of
> > development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially
> > maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times
> > faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden
> > bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care.
>
> I prefer a language that is human-oriented. I would rather have
> something run a bit more slowly but be safer. Most of the time, it
> does not matter (to me or mine) much anyway. If it does, then I worry
> about optimisation.

Believe it or not, you can have: human-oriented, safe, fast
AND available on the RPi, all in the same language.

-- 
Bill Findlay

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

#9739

Den 2019-02-25 kl. 04:59, skrev Gene Wirchenko:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:56:27 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> 	For anything I/O bound I prefer Python, Perl or Java (but not
>> 'enterprise' Java with all the trimmings and cruft - the language is good
>> but the cruft is ... well cruft). Readability, maintainability and speed of
>> development are all more important than raw efficiency - most especially
>> maintainability. It is no good having code a tenth the size and ten times
>> faster if the first time someone less careful works on it dangerous hidden
>> bugs appear because handling pointers and raw memory requires care.
> 
>       I prefer a language that is human-oriented.  I would rather have
> something run a bit more slowly but be safer.  Most of the time, it
> does not matter (to me or mine) much anyway.  If it does, then I worry
> about optimisation.


I konw of only one language with explicit design goals of
"program reliability and maintenance, programming as a human activity, 
and efficiency"

http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/lrm-01-03.html

or as
https://www.radford.edu/nokie/classes/320/designGoals.html
says

1 Supporting reliability and maintainability
     * Large programs with long lifetime
2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space)
3 Concern for programmer: Language is small and consistent
     * Readability favored over writability


> 
>> 	It is also worth noticing that just because the language is low
>> level and permits high efficiency there's no guarantee of efficient
>> programs, all too many programmers start coding and stop designing far too
>> soon and wind up using very bad algorithms or optimising the wrong things
>> producing twisty masses of C code that once you understand what they're
>> supposed to achieve can be replaced by short pieces of clear python that
>> *are* ten times smaller and run ten times faster or slightly longer pieces
>> of C that are *slightly* faster than the python but harder to maintain.
> 
>       Exactly.  I write something reasonable; it usually is fast
> enough.  If not, only then I optimise.


My favorite link in this respect is this
https://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~adagroup/sigada-website/lawlis.html


Abstract

With the intent of getting an Ada waiver, a defense contractor wrote a 
portion of its software in Ada to prove that Ada could not produce 
real-time code. The expectation was that the resultant machine code 
would be too large and too slow to be effective for a communications 
application. However, the opposite was verified. With only minor source 
code variations, one version of the compiled Ada code was much smaller 
while executing at approximately the same speed, and a second version 
was approximately the same size but much faster than the corresponding 
assembly code.


....



sudo apt install gnat-6

will get you far on the pi

(gnat is the gcc frontend to Ada)

-- 
Björn

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

#9761

2019-02-25 21:02 skrev  Björn Lundin:
> 2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space)

Minimize speed?

-- 
Lars Enderin

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

#9763

On 2019-02-25 18:37, Lars Enderin wrote:
> 2019-02-25 21:02 skrev  Björn Lundin:
>> 2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space)
> 
> Minimize speed?
> 


I think he intended "minimize execution time..."

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going 
somewhere. (Groucho Marx)

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

#9767

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:37:51 +0100
Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> wrote:

> 2019-02-25 21:02 skrev  Björn Lundin:
> > 2 Efficiency (minimize execution speed and space)
> 
> Minimize speed?

	Amphetamines are bad for you.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9632

On 2/23/19 10:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:40:43 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/24/2019 12:11 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2019 4:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
>>>> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3220000/3212479/p10-chisnall.pdf?ip=90.22.143.233&id=3212479&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1550954647_0d9af87c752b221627509ce89da282a8
>>>>
>>>
>>> C is definitely no 4GL (4th generation language)!
>>> But .... many 4GLs were written in C! :)
>>>
>>
>> And many operating systems are written in C.
>> In short, C is a pillar!
> 
> C is a write-only language.  :-)
> 

That is what they say about Perl too.  Chuckle.

I write in "Top Down". Makes it very readable
and easy to maintain, whatever language you're
are writing in.  Whenever I try to read C, I get
a migraine.   I have to give credit where credit is
do.  Those that write in C have some extraordinary
talent.

Now what exactly does $x ~~ s/\/\\\/\/\/\\/\\\/\/\/ do?

:-)

Perl 6 is a wonderful clean up of Perl 5.  Does are
written is C too.  HHmmmmmmm

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

#9633

On 2/24/19 12:30 AM, T wrote:
>   Does are
     Both are

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

#9636

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 00:30:28 -0800
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Now what exactly does $x ~~ s/\/\\\/\/\/\\/\\\/\/\/ do?

	Cause bugs every time someone tries to change it or the code around
it. The wise programmer chooses a different delimiter when their regular
expression contains /s.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#9639

In message <qsf47edk21e705cfp6kj73b4fa5hbqjf59@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens 
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> writes:
[]
>C is a write-only language.  :-)

Like all programming languages, it is possible to write something that's 
indescribably elegant, and pleasing to the eye - but, as another has 
said, virtually impossible to understand how it works when you come back 
to it after a while.

(I remember seeing a line of BASIC - I think it was NASCOM BASIC or 
similar - that achieved decimal to Roman numerals conversion in one 
[albeit long] line. [Actually, partly by the nature of BASIC, that _was_ 
understandable.])

As another has said, _commenting_ is important - certainly for anything 
collaborative, but even for yourself if you intend to come back to the 
code after even a relatively short time. I'd disagree that the comment 
should show what it's supposed to do rather than how it does it: if the 
latter is in any way obscure (including clever), it should explain that 
_as well_.

Advice (and manuals, and sometimes even company procedures) often 
recommend)s( a ratio of comment to code; whatever ratio is recommended, 
of course, few of us follow that, and _usually_ without problem. It 
_can_ be argued that well-written code is its own comment, and that can 
_sometimes_ be the case - though efficient C does lend itself to 
impenetrability. Also, the arguments about whether the compiler can 
match the coder for efficiency will go on for ever, too. (Certainly I 
used to think I could do better than any compiler, but that was decades 
ago - though what I've seen recently of automatically-generated HTML has 
certainly not impressed me.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12

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

#9643

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote

| Like all programming languages, it is possible to write something that's
| indescribably elegant, and pleasing to the eye - but, as another has
| said, virtually impossible to understand how it works when you come back
| to it after a while.

  That's a pet peeve of mine. People who think it's
clever to shrink multiple steps into one. They sacrifice
readability based on a misconception -- the notion
that terse code is efficient code. 

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

Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web