«

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:44:39 GMT, "jce" <>
wrote or quoted :

>are gullible) actually believed it for a moment
>
>http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=819/sdm0204f/


I think it could be doable within a certain problem domain, for
example setting up simple databases with data validation, report
generation.

The interactions need not be free form English. They could be fill in
the blanks or interactive questioning.


--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:47:14 -0400, Joe Zitzelberger
<> wrote or quoted :

>
>I prefer assembly language to everything...what does that mean?

The great appeal of writing the core of my Forth/Abundance interpreter
in assembler was that I knew exactly what was going on in side down to
the bit level. Nothing was happening I did not know about. This
desire for microcontrol and perfection comes best from writing in
Assembler. The only idiots you have to swear at are the folk who
designed the instruction set.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

Paul Hsieh wrote:


> COBOL and Pascal (the other groups you crossposted this message to)
> will decrease in usage over time, not increase. There is absolutely
> no new serious development being done in either language. In 15
> years, Pascal will probably be completely dead, and the COBOL
> community will be reduced even from the size of today's community
> (human mortality alone will guarantee this.)

This may be true for COBOL, but Pascal is very much alive and kicking,
in the form of Delphi/Kylix. I am currently writing Kylix software, most
of the cutting edge routines (that do the real work rather than the user
interface) are straight plug-ins of 15 year old Turbo-Pascal code. Now
with Borland going for cross-platform (Windozze/Unix) compatibility
there is no reason why Pascal should die in the foreseable future.

"Howard Brazee" <> wrote in message news:<bh8k02$dr8$>...
> On 9-Aug-2003, (goose) wrote:
>
> > who do you think will write a program that will run (recompiled if necessary)
> > on the greatest number of machines ?
>
> Greatest number of machines.
>
> I don't think someone writing a business application cares about, say
> stoplights. But stoplights are machines with computer programs in them.
>
> So the question should be - which language gives me an advantage in reaching
> more prospective paying customers for my product with the least cost to me?

the original statement (which was snipped) was
----
>
> > > Java has another huge advantage - it runs on anything without having to
> > > spend more money.
> >
> > <howls of laughter> pull the other one sonnyboy, its got bells on
>
> OK, I exaggerated. But it runs on a lot more platforms than anything else
> without costing more.
----

I have already pointed out that this is not true.

>
> If my application runs best on big iron, that may be CoBOL. (Good for me, that
> is my native programming language).
> If my application is to show me on my hand held which golf club I need for my
> next shot (according to my past history, a map of the course, and the GPS
> satellite), then CoBOL isn't a good choice.
>
> But if I am wanting to create a program that all of the students in a university
> can use to interface with the campus's computers - I can assume most of them can
> already run my XML and Java code.

and yet creating a std C program would not only get you that, it would also
get you a fairly snappy application *and* leave you open in the future
to be able to support those people who have machines that are not
capable of running java (certain designer palmtop-types) to *also*
interface with the campus machines.

java doesn't *buy* you anything extra in terms of portability.
The only relatively *portable* way I can think of is when writing
applets for web-pages (note: /relatively/). as long as the browser
has a java runtime environment, of course.

Java does have its advantages. Portability isn't one of them.

hth
goose,
I feel very strongly about the "while" loop. I suggest we take
it hostage to demand the release of the "goto"

In article <>, Peter E.C. Dashwood wrote:
>
> "Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <> wrote in message
> news:bha4np$9lm$00$...
>> Paul Hsieh wrote:
>>
>>
>> > COBOL and Pascal (the other groups you crossposted this message to)
>> > will decrease in usage over time, not increase. There is absolutely
>> > no new serious development being done in either language. In 15
>> > years, Pascal will probably be completely dead, and the COBOL
>> > community will be reduced even from the size of today's community
>> > (human mortality alone will guarantee this.)
>>
>> This may be true for COBOL, but Pascal is very much alive and kicking,
>> in the form of Delphi/Kylix. I am currently writing Kylix software, most
>> of the cutting edge routines (that do the real work rather than the user
>> interface) are straight plug-ins of 15 year old Turbo-Pascal code. Now
>> with Borland going for cross-platform (Windozze/Unix) compatibility
>> there is no reason why Pascal should die in the foreseable future.
>
> There are 400,000,000 reasons why ALL procedural languages (including COBOL
> and PASCAL) should "die" in the not-too-distant future. (I don't know your
> definition of "foreseeable" but mine is around 20 years...)

Really? Please name and discuss them.

> They are the number of people who access the internet every day. (For the
> sake of this argument, I'll call them the "user base"...) They are not about
> to become "computer programmers".

Indeed.

> Instead, they will demand better interfaces, smarter software,

True

> and MUCH better ways of developing computer systems than sequential Von
> Neumann code.

On the contrary, specially for these kinds of users, sequential jobs are a
way of thinking that is normal to them.

> Most of them are "smarter" and more "computer literate" than their
> prdecessors of even 10 years ago.

Yes. They are not scared anymore. OTOH the requirements on them have severly
increased also. I sometimes doubt if increased computer literacy actually kept
up with the added computer tasks for the avg person.

> They are not intimidated by computer technology, will happily interact
> with smart software to achieve a result, and are not prepared to rely on
> and wait for, remote, faceless, technocrats to provide them with computer
> solutions to business problems.

Yes, they want smug buzzword talking con-men to take advantage of them ?

> We may have our own favourite Languages and we can poddle away in a corner
> somewhere cutting code for the fun of it, but the real world demands that it
> get solutions.

Exactly. So as long as my solution is good, and I can justify using a language,
waht is the problem.

> By 2015 a new generation of development software will see "programmers"
> removed from the loop and end users interacting and iterating with smart
> software until they get what they want.

Sure. The telepathic kinds.

> Procedural code is already into Gotterdammerung.


> It takes too long, requires too much skill,

Programming is what requires the skill. Not the language. If you studied programming
closer, you'd know that.

> is too inflexible (the accelerating rate of change in the Marketplace and
> in technology is another reason why it is doomed to extinction) and,
> overall, costs far too much.

And where are you references for that. You don't even say what it is up
against, except some vague references about software which is going to
emerge as a winner in 2015 (and which I assume is telepathic, at least if I
see your description)

> skills... Why bother? Why should an Insurance company spend $50,000,000 a
> year on in house IT when they could buy the service for $10,000,000?

Ah, but could they, and with the same secondary securities? Price is not the only
point of competition.

> The only thing that COULD save procedural coding of solutions would be if
> it priced itself back into the market. This MIGHT happen with offshore
> outsourcing, but it is unlikely.
>
> Bottom Line: Don't get smug about COBOL dying and PASCAL surviving; they are
> on the same parachute and the ground is coming up....

Bottom Line: I think we can safely award you the "troll of the week" award, with
"don't panic" in nice friendly letters.

"Peter E.C. Dashwood" wrote:
>
> "Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <> wrote in message
> news:bha4np$9lm$00$...
> > Paul Hsieh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > COBOL and Pascal (the other groups you crossposted this message to)
> > > will decrease in usage over time, not increase. There is absolutely
> > > no new serious development being done in either language. In 15
> > > years, Pascal will probably be completely dead, and the COBOL
> > > community will be reduced even from the size of today's community
> > > (human mortality alone will guarantee this.)
> >
> > This may be true for COBOL, but Pascal is very much alive and kicking,
> > in the form of Delphi/Kylix. I am currently writing Kylix software, most
> > of the cutting edge routines (that do the real work rather than the user
> > interface) are straight plug-ins of 15 year old Turbo-Pascal code. Now
> > with Borland going for cross-platform (Windozze/Unix) compatibility
> > there is no reason why Pascal should die in the foreseable future.
>
> There are 400,000,000 reasons why ALL procedural languages (including COBOL
> and PASCAL) should "die" in the not-too-distant future. (I don't know your
> definition of "foreseeable" but mine is around 20 years...)

.... and replaced by what?

In the early 80-es there was a hype on PROLOG: The japanese are working
with PROLOG and 10 years from now PROLOG will replace traditional procedural
computer languages completely. So, where is PROLOG today, 20 years later?

[snip a lot of interesting thoughts]

> Bottom Line: Don't get smug about COBOL dying and PASCAL surviving; they are
> on the same parachute and the ground is coming up....

Procedural languages will be there for a long time. The languages may be different,
but still use the same principle. Knowing how to program in this paradigm will still
be the entry key to programming those languages. The rest is syntactic
sugar (simplified).

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger

"Karl Heinz Buchegger" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" wrote:
> >
> > "Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <> wrote in message
> > news:bha4np$9lm$00$...
> > > Paul Hsieh wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > COBOL and Pascal (the other groups you crossposted this message to)
> > > > will decrease in usage over time, not increase. There is absolutely
> > > > no new serious development being done in either language. In 15
> > > > years, Pascal will probably be completely dead, and the COBOL
> > > > community will be reduced even from the size of today's community
> > > > (human mortality alone will guarantee this.)
> > >
> > > This may be true for COBOL, but Pascal is very much alive and kicking,
> > > in the form of Delphi/Kylix. I am currently writing Kylix software,
most
> > > of the cutting edge routines (that do the real work rather than the
user
> > > interface) are straight plug-ins of 15 year old Turbo-Pascal code. Now
> > > with Borland going for cross-platform (Windozze/Unix) compatibility
> > > there is no reason why Pascal should die in the foreseable future.
> >
> > There are 400,000,000 reasons why ALL procedural languages (including
COBOL
> > and PASCAL) should "die" in the not-too-distant future. (I don't know
your
> > definition of "foreseeable" but mine is around 20 years...)
>
> ... and replaced by what?
>
> In the early 80-es there was a hype on PROLOG: The japanese are working
> with PROLOG and 10 years from now PROLOG will replace traditional
procedural
> computer languages completely. So, where is PROLOG today, 20 years later?
>
> [snip a lot of interesting thoughts]

Yes, I remember the Japanese PROLOG push and the drive to develop the first
AI Operating System.

It certainly failed.

So did attempts to build a lacemaking machine in the late 18th century in
England. The received wisdom was that it was impossible because the process
of making lace was just too intricate.

It took countless attempts, ruined families, suicides, and 30 years, but the
machine is viewable today in the Lace museum in Nottingham.

To answer your very fair question (... and replaced by what?), I believe
that new methodologies for system development will arise in response to the
pressure from the Marketplace. I have already seen interesting departures
from traditional methods that achieved much faster results and were much
more flexible. The key to these approaches is a more RAD like process with
iteration and interaction by users. Currently, we have programmers and
"Quick Build" tools in the loop, but it is only a matter of time before
smarter software will take on these functions. Eventually, end-users will
interact with smart software to achieve what they want, and there will be no
programmer in the loop at all.

There is far too much on this to go into here (sorry, I know that sounds
like a cop out, but I have been writing on this subject for some years now
and have been using alternative approaches in the real world in industry
with results that are very encouraging.), but I will close by saying that
everything I am saying is simply extrapolation from what is happening NOW. I
claim no psychic powers, just good observation and a lifetime of experience
in IT.

>
> > Bottom Line: Don't get smug about COBOL dying and PASCAL surviving; they
are
> > on the same parachute and the ground is coming up....
>
> Procedural languages will be there for a long time. The languages may be
different,
> but still use the same principle. Knowing how to program in this paradigm
will still
> be the entry key to programming those languages. The rest is syntactic
> sugar (simplified).

Well, time will tell...<G>

Pete.

On 12-Aug-2003, "Peter E.C. Dashwood" <> wrote:

> I wonder why your response is so vitriolic?

Really?

> I didn't set out to attack you.

Agreed.

> Could you be a little sensitive to the truth of what I'm saying?

Isn't that human nature - when the truth hurts?

-----
By far the most irrational character on Star Trek was the one who always was
amazed when people acted like people.

On 12-Aug-2003, "Peter E.C. Dashwood" <> wrote:

> > Bottom Line: I think we can safely award you the "troll of the week"
> award, with
> > "don't panic" in nice friendly letters.
>
> Well, I always enjoyed the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but I have never
> been a troll. You have no idea who you are dealing with <G>.

The set of trolls includes a large number of trouble makers. So we tend to
deny that what we're doing is trolling, when our purpose is noble.

But a statement designed to gain a response still qualifies. We need more
intelligent, useful trolling.

"Peter E.C. Dashwood" wrote:

> There are 400,000,000 reasons why ALL procedural languages (including COBOL
> and PASCAL) should "die" in the not-too-distant future. (I don't know your
> definition of "foreseeable" but mine is around 20 years...)
>

Pascal is not any more purely procedural than C++. Last time I checked, C++
still had functions. If you want to insist that Pascal has not evolved since
1973, then you are going to insist on being wrong.

--
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....