Solar wrote:Learning a language isn't the big time / cost factor. But it also does not bring you onto the same level as everybody else as far as communication is concerned.
Learning a language is a time/cost factor, gaining adequate experience with a language is a time/cost factor, and "changing mental gears" when switching between languages you have experience in is a time/cost factor. It would be foolish to ignore these time/cost factors just because there are other time/cost factors (e.g. familiarisation with the problem domain, learning third-party libraries/SDKs, etc) that remain the same regardless of which language is used; even if those other time/cost factors dominate. That would be like (e.g.) not caring about paying $100 for a cup of coffee because you're paying $300 for rent.
Cheers,
Brendan
For all things; perfection is, and will always remain, impossible to achieve in practice. However; by striving for perfection we create things that are as perfect as practically possible. Let the pursuit of perfection be our guide.
Please provide proof that the cost of changing language outweighs the cost of attempting something with a language that wasn't designed for the kind of problem you're trying to solve.
(Hint: That's something you cannot prove for the general case, only the specific. Which is where your argument bites itself in the butt. Let companies, or departments, decide on what languages to employ. Dump your "one language should be enough for everything" pipe dream. Not going to happen. Same for "everybody should drive the same type of car because that would be more efficient for factories and shops". A shipping company will have a different idea of "standard" from a cab company from a father of three.)
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
Solar wrote:Please provide proof that the cost of changing language outweighs the cost of attempting something with a language that wasn't designed for the kind of problem you're trying to solve.
(Hint: That's something you cannot prove for the general case, only the specific. Which is where your argument bites itself in the butt. Let companies, or departments, decide on what languages to employ. Dump your "one language should be enough for everything" pipe dream. Not going to happen. Same for "everybody should drive the same type of car because that would be more efficient for factories and shops". A shipping company will have a different idea of "standard" from a cab company from a father of three.)
Please provide proof that the cost of changing language does not outweigh the cost of attempting something with a language that wasn't designed for the kind of problem you're trying to solve.
Perhaps instead of trying hard to become offended you could be a tiny bit practical instead. For example, Objective C is a superset of C so we can delete C (and everyone that knows C can just say that know a subset of Objective C), there's so much overlap between the core features provided Java and C# that it's obvious at least one of them is unnecessary, and (for 80x86) the differences between AT&T syntax and Intel syntax are almost entirely superficial. That's 3 cases where "one less language" would make no difference whatsoever.
How about LUA vs. Python vs. Perl? Surely 2 of them can be deprecated. BASIC vs. Pascal? Pick one. Scheme vs. Lisp?
We could probably get rid of 50% of programming languages just by trimming the low hanging fruit.
Cheers,
Brendan
For all things; perfection is, and will always remain, impossible to achieve in practice. However; by striving for perfection we create things that are as perfect as practically possible. Let the pursuit of perfection be our guide.
Brendan wrote:Perhaps instead of trying hard to become offended...
It's not hard to be offended when someone says "you're just a secretary and couldn't be bothered to solve the real problem". And then quite deliberately refuses to even acknowledge that he offended.
Programming languages "trim" themselves. It's called evolution.
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
Brendan wrote:Perhaps instead of trying hard to become offended...
It's not hard to be offended when someone says "you're just a secretary and couldn't be bothered to solve the real problem". And then quite deliberately refuses to even acknowledge that he offended.
Fine. I acknowledge that you're a "fragile" person who chose not to think about what I was trying to say (that domain specific languages are closer to data and not programming languages) for the purpose of avoiding issues and creating drama.
Solar wrote:Programming languages "trim" themselves. It's called evolution.
Ideally, yes. In practice without a formal "deprecation process" they just get used less and may never be trimmed (and in the rare cases where they are effectively trimmed it takes decades), and without a formal "selection process" the rate new languages are introduced exceeds the rate that languages are trimmed by a significant margin; and these factors combined lead to the number of languages continually growing until... when?
Cheers,
Brendan
For all things; perfection is, and will always remain, impossible to achieve in practice. However; by striving for perfection we create things that are as perfect as practically possible. Let the pursuit of perfection be our guide.
Solar wrote:It's not hard to be offended when someone says "you're just a secretary and couldn't be bothered to solve the real problem". And then quite deliberately refuses to even acknowledge that he offended.
Fine. I acknowledge that you're a "fragile" person who chose not to think about what I was trying to say (that domain specific languages are closer to data and not programming languages) for the purpose of avoiding issues and creating drama.
No, Brendan. That is not the way it works. You can control how you're sending, but you cannot impose on others how you are to be recieved. When called out for having offended, calling the other person "fragile" and assigning blame on the receicer is bullying 101.
And the one avoiding issues is you. You came up with a pretty unrealistic idea, criticism was voiced, and you got personal. Stand down, ok?
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
Brendan wrote:No, Brendan. That is not the way it works. You can control how you're sending, but you cannot impose on others how you are to be recieved. When called out for having offended, calling the other person "fragile" and assigning blame on the receicer is bullying 101.
And the one avoiding issues is you. You came up with a pretty unrealistic idea, criticism was voiced, and you got personal. Stand down, ok?
I'm horribly offended by your words and I think you owe me an apology. I don't even understand why you've decided to bully me just because I posted an obviously impractical thought.
Cheers,
Brendan
For all things; perfection is, and will always remain, impossible to achieve in practice. However; by striving for perfection we create things that are as perfect as practically possible. Let the pursuit of perfection be our guide.
Brendan wrote:I'm horribly offended by your words...
No you're not, you're ridiculing me. Your post has been reported, and honestly, you should consider stepping back from your moderator status voluntarily at this point.
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
Brendan wrote:I'm horribly offended by your words...
No you're not, you're ridiculing me. Your post has been reported, and honestly, you should consider stepping back from your moderator status voluntarily at this point.
Oh my. I've been sitting here crying for the last half an hour. Why won't you stop harassing me??
Cheers,
Brendan
For all things; perfection is, and will always remain, impossible to achieve in practice. However; by striving for perfection we create things that are as perfect as practically possible. Let the pursuit of perfection be our guide.
I agree with Solar. The "trust score" is not very high at the moment.
My point here is that anyone can claim they've been offended by literally anything; and merely claiming they've been offended does not mean their claim is valid.
If/when I am satisfied that Solar has learnt this important lesson he will be unbanned.
Note that this is not the first time that Solar has pretended to be offended for the sake of causing trouble. It is a continuing/recurring issue, and it will end now.
Cheers,
Brendan
For all things; perfection is, and will always remain, impossible to achieve in practice. However; by striving for perfection we create things that are as perfect as practically possible. Let the pursuit of perfection be our guide.
trident wrote:I did not create the topic Esoteric programming languages for confusion.
Don't worry, the topic itself did not cause the scene that resulted in the unfortunate argument. Nevertheless, there are some viewpoints posted here that may be interesting if you skip the off-topic part.
