*DevSource* profiles "The State of the Scripting Universe" in
<URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp >.
<URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp >.
-
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Cameron Laird wrote:[color=blue]
> *DevSource* profiles "The State of the Scripting Universe" in
> <URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp >.[/color]
Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here,
though IE shows it fine. :-(
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Peter Hansen schrieb:[color=blue]
> Cameron Laird wrote:
>[color=green]
>> *DevSource* profiles "The State of the Scripting Universe" in
>> <URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp >.[/color]
>
>
> Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here,
> though IE shows it fine. :-([/color]
Mozilla 1.7.3 shows it fine, too. FF bug or config issue?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel +49-241-93878-0
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0 BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\ n'.decode('base 64')
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Peter Maas wrote:[color=blue]
> Peter Hansen schrieb:
>[color=green]
>> Cameron Laird wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> *DevSource* profiles "The State of the Scripting Universe" in
>>> <URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp >.[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here,
>> though IE shows it fine. :-([/color]
>
>
> Mozilla 1.7.3 shows it fine, too. FF bug or config issue?[/color]
FF didn't show it to me earlier, but it seems to work now.
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:49:15 +0100, Peter Maas <peter@somewher e.com>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.pytho n:
[color=blue]
> Peter Hansen schrieb:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here,
> > though IE shows it fine. :-([/color]
>
> Mozilla 1.7.3 shows it fine, too. FF bug or config issue?[/color]
Came up on my system, from "About":
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225
Firefox/1.0.1
--[color=blue]
> =============== =============== =============== =============== == <
> wlfraed@ix.netc om.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> wulfraed@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> =============== =============== =============== =============== == <
> Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
> Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.ne tcom.com/> <[/color]
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Jeff Schwab wrote:[color=blue]
> Peter Maas wrote:[color=green]
>> Peter Hansen schrieb:[color=darkred]
>>> Cameron Laird wrote:
>>>> *DevSource* profiles "The State of the Scripting Universe" in
>>>> <URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp >.
>>>
>>> Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here,
>>> though IE shows it fine. :-([/color]
>>
>> Mozilla 1.7.3 shows it fine, too. FF bug or config issue?[/color]
>
> FF didn't show it to me earlier, but it seems to work now.[/color]
Thanks for the tip, Jeff. It is now working for me as well,
with zero changes to my setup. Odd....
-Peter
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Hey, Jeff Hobbs got the last word. ;-)
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Advocates of languages and programming methodologies sometimes compare
the current version of their favorite language to an old version of
their disfavored language, resulting in skewed comparisons. For
example, Conway writes
"Interprete d languages do two things much better than compiled
languages.
Firstly, they provide more sophisticated programming tools and support
for more advanced programming techniques. For example, Perl provides
hashed look-up tables and arbitrary-length arrays as core data types. C
doesn't even have a proper string type. Likewise, Perl's data sorting
facilities are integrated into the language, so the sorting criteria
are directly programmable.
Having all the basic tools of programming (i.e. high-level data types
and common algorithms) built into the language, rather than having to
build them yourself, means that you need to write less code to solve a
given problem."
I think most of the advanced programming techniques he mentions are
part of the C++ Standard Library.
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
That was a great article. I really enjoyed it. We need more like it.
Robert
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Cameron Laird wrote:[color=blue]
> *DevSource* profiles "The State of the Scripting Universe" in
> <URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp >.[/color]
It would have been nice to put in a blurb for some of the cool stuff
planned for 8.5. That way people could see that things are *happening*
in the Tcl world and Tcl is moving forward language wise.
That doesn't take away from the article though. It was just a thought.
Robert
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
In article <1111613336.660 577.241450@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
<sigzero@gmail. com> wrote:
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Cameron Laird wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1111613336.660 577.241450@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
> <sigzero@gmail. com> wrote:
> .
> .
> .[color=green]
> >It would have been nice to put in a blurb for some of the cool stuff
> >planned for 8.5. That way people could see that things are[/color][/color]
*happening*[color=blue][color=green]
> >in the Tcl world and Tcl is moving forward language wise.
> >
> >That doesn't take away from the article though. It was just a[/color][/color]
thought.[color=blue]
> .
> .
> .
> Robert, though "just a thought", I want to say a few words in[/color]
response:[color=blue]
> you're wrong. Or, you're ambiguous: I think you're saying, "To[/color]
appro-[color=blue]
> priately infect readers with the enthusiasm for Tcl that you (and I)
> think they deserve to have, it is necessary to anticipate the[/color]
objection[color=blue]
> that Tcl is 'dormant' and convince them otherwise."
>
> Here's the problem: a magazine needs to be written for its readers,
> rather than its authors or any other actors (from a business stand-
> point, content ultimately is designed to serve advertisers, but that
> rather dreary reality is a distraction we'll ignore for now). Lynn's
> job was to profile the languages. To keep her scope manageable, she
> did not address the cultures of the different languages. As I under-
> stand her thoughts, she doesn't try to help the languages, but rather
> help the readers.
>
> It feels as though I'm hitting this tack of a point with a too-heavy
> sledgehammer. I sure don't want to offend you, Robert; I *do* want
> to take the opportunity to distinguish the different motivations[/color]
afoot[color=blue]
> here. While I think you already understand this, I'll make it[/color]
explicit:[color=blue]
> Lynn deserves our encouragement for her openness to ideas like use of
> scripting languages, not our censure for failing to go far enough.[/color]
The size of you hammer was okay with me. It takes a lot to offend me
and having delt with people from this group I know that most of the
stuff is constructive in nature anyway. : )
I did take the opportunity to submit the overall article to OSNews with
an extra link to the Tcl article.
Robert
Comment
-
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
In article <1111590036.737 601.168710@o13g 2000cwo.googleg roups.com>,
<beliavsky@aol. com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Advocates of languages and programming methodologies sometimes compare
>the current version of their favorite language to an old version of
>their disfavored language, resulting in skewed comparisons. For
>example, Conway writes
>
>"Interprete d languages do two things much better than compiled
>languages.
>
>Firstly, they provide more sophisticated programming tools and support
>for more advanced programming techniques. For example, Perl provides
>hashed look-up tables and arbitrary-length arrays as core data types. C
>doesn't even have a proper string type. Likewise, Perl's data sorting
>facilities are integrated into the language, so the sorting criteria
>are directly programmable.
>
>Having all the basic tools of programming (i.e. high-level data types
>and common algorithms) built into the language, rather than having to
>build them yourself, means that you need to write less code to solve a
>given problem."
>
>I think most of the advanced programming techniques he mentions are
>part of the C++ Standard Library.
>[/color]
In principle, yes--and that's certainly how C++ fans typically
feel. Frankly, Perl (and Python ...) implementations remain
more polished and mature than what the STL and allies offer.
I agree in general that people often say, "I like Y in year N
better than I liked X in year N-6, therefore Y is better than
N." Damian's not particularly prone to that error, though,
and I think, in the case at hand, C++ really *does* continue
to lag.
Comment
Comment