4 ms·

I'm not seeing your point. Your posts I have read thus far are arguing for a specific programming style....but you dismiss all other programming styles. Your

by lsadam0 11y ago

I'm not seeing your point. Your posts I have read thus far are arguing for a specific programming style....but you dismiss all other programming styles. Your style is just another 'paris designer dress'. Objectively, certain styles have distinct advantages over others. Your argument comes across as "Broadband? Why would I need broadband? I have a perfectly fine dial-up modem!". I'm trying to say this as nice as possible: You come across as a person who is against learning any new concepts. As if you learned one thing many years ago and refuse to change.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- lsadam0 11y ago
  Apologies, there's some confusion here. I was attempting to direct my reply to Graycat, and not you. Throughout the thread Graycat has been singing the praises of VB.Net while dismissing most other languages and styles. It's a curious position, I'm interested in his justification. Edit: Unless you are Graycat & DanielBMarkham :)
graycat 11y ago
I learn new stuff right along. Just now I'm trying to get my startup live so am cutting back on learning new stuff, but I have several lifetimes of new stuff I'm eager to learn. I've learned lots of new stuff in computing and in programming languages. But, by now, in programming languages, mostly I give up -- structured programming, object oriented programming, logic programming, rule based programming, functional programming, programming based on actors, threaded, stack based programming, frame based programming, strongly typed programming, programming based on communicating sequential processes, literate programming -- because the tools are, net, not better. For some progress, it would be good to be able to have some proofs of correctness. I looked at that field, and it's hopeless: First problem, the proofs are too long and hard to do, e.g., have some astounding collection of induction arguments. Second, with programming language side effects, etc., have to assume away a lot of possibilities for errors. Third, a proof needs some hypotheses and conclusions, that is, givens and results, and for realistic software those two are too difficult to have in precise terms. E.g., for realistic software, it's just too tough to describe in principle, as needed for a solid proof, all the possible inputs and what should be done for all the cases. So, attention to proofs of correctness mostly went away. Net, in my programming, for progress in having the software simple, efficient, easy to understand, easy to write, debug, and change, my approach is just good conceptual design, documentation, and use of the basic tools in VB .NET. I'm no longer looking for such progress via programming language syntax, semantics, constructs, or features.

by lsadam0 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

lsadam0 11y ago
Apologies, there's some confusion here. I was attempting to direct my reply to Graycat, and not you. Throughout the thread Graycat has been singing the praises of VB.Net while dismissing most other languages and styles. It's a curious position, I'm interested in his justification. Edit: Unless you are Graycat & DanielBMarkham :)

graycat 11y ago

I learn new stuff right along. Just now I'm trying to get my startup live so am cutting back on learning new stuff, but I have several lifetimes of new stuff I'm eager to learn. I've learned lots of new stuff in computing and in programming languages. But, by now, in programming languages, mostly I give up -- structured programming, object oriented programming, logic programming, rule based programming, functional programming, programming based on actors, threaded, stack based programming, frame based programming, strongly typed programming, programming based on communicating sequential processes, literate programming -- because the tools are, net, not better. For some progress, it would be good to be able to have some proofs of correctness. I looked at that field, and it's hopeless: First problem, the proofs are too long and hard to do, e.g., have some astounding collection of induction arguments. Second, with programming language side effects, etc., have to assume away a lot of possibilities for errors. Third, a proof needs some hypotheses and conclusions, that is, givens and results, and for realistic software those two are too difficult to have in precise terms. E.g., for realistic software, it's just too tough to describe in principle, as needed for a solid proof, all the possible inputs and what should be done for all the cases. So, attention to proofs of correctness mostly went away. Net, in my programming, for progress in having the software simple, efficient, easy to understand, easy to write, debug, and change, my approach is just good conceptual design, documentation, and use of the basic tools in VB .NET. I'm no longer looking for such progress via programming language syntax, semantics, constructs, or features.