Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Roedy Green]

Mix wrote:
>hich language will pay top 17457 in the long run?

Two answers:

1. Philistine.  Which language you should study is a RELIGIOUS issue.

2. the law of supply and demand.  Java programmers are in shorter supply
now, but then C++ programmers are harder to manufacture.

For the JAVA GLOSSARY and the CMP Utilities: http://oberon.ark.com/~roedy
--
Roedy Green               Roedy rhymes with Cody   roedy@bix.com ICQ:5144242
Canadian Mind Products    contract programming     (250) 285-2954
POB 707 Quathiaski Cove   Quadra Island BC         Canada V0P 1N0 
-30-

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]



Wes Groleau wrote:

> > Mix wrote:
> > >hich language will pay top 17457 in the long run?
>
> If you are truly not able to learn several languages, then--for
> "the long run"--you need to learn a language that endures - Cobol,
> Fortran, Ada, even (shudder) C.  Not a fad language like C++ or
> Java.  Java is certainly superior to C, but at present, there's
> no guarantee that it will still be widely used three years from now.
>
> I find it humorous that the original poster was smart enough to ask
> users of eight languages, but some of the replies assume C++ and
> Java are the only options!

AHHHH, We DIDN'T assume!  The subject INDICATES it!
PERSONALLY, I say that C should be learned almost last.  If you learn
C++, that should be learned AFTER C!  BASIC is a winner for the first
language.

COBOL, in case your curious, would be closer to basic, but come AFTER
it(unless you choose not to learn basic).

[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Wes Groleau]

> Mix wrote:
> >hich language will pay top 17457 in the long run?

If you are truly not able to learn several languages, then--for 
"the long run"--you need to learn a language that endures - Cobol,
Fortran, Ada, even (shudder) C.  Not a fad language like C++ or 
Java.  Java is certainly superior to C, but at present, there's
no guarantee that it will still be widely used three years from now.

I find it humorous that the original poster was smart enough to ask
users of eight languages, but some of the replies assume C++ and
Java are the only options!

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Wes Groleau wrote in message <3498315B.144B@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>...
...
>I find it humorous that the original poster was smart enough to ask
>users of eight languages, but some of the replies assume C++ and
>Java are the only options!

I find it amusing that the original article *excluded* all languages
but C++ and Java from consideration (mostly for spurious reasons)
and yet it was cross-posted to all those language newgroups.  Looked
like a troll for a flame-war to me.

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3776 bytes --]



Alicia Carla Longstreet wrote:

> BASIC should *NEVER* under any circumstances be taught to first time
> programmers.  It is the worst possible language to use to teach
> programming.  This tirade does not apply to the various modular
> languages, like Visual Basic, that are not really BASIC but use Basic in
> their names.
>

ACTUALLY, VB is probably not good for a first language(first WINDOWS
language, YES, but NOT for UNIX, etc....).  It is event driven, and that may
confuse some people and requires something else to be learned.

I agree that the lack of a "structure" and calling syntax in the STANDARD
spec is a bad thing, and CAN lead to bad habits.  That has ALWAYS been a
concern!  But most students will probably not learn that for a while
anyway.  *I* think it is a good basis, and a way to get your feet wet.  Too
many people are technophobic.

> C is actually a good first langauge.  The set of keywords is small so
> the instructor can concentrate on concepts like  data types, structured
> programming, modularity, encapsulation and data hiding,and algorithms
> rather on a thousand and one commands needed to do all of the above.  A
> beginner needs only <string.h> and <stdio.h> for the first semester, and
> 60% of the functions in these can be safely ignored.  That leaves less
> than 100 keywords that the beginner needs to learn.

Well, it IS better now than earlier.  Computers aren't likely to become
unstable if you make a mistake, etc....  AND, they are FASTER! 8-)  But C
has a lot of things that confuse people.  They confused me, but I held on
tight and RAN with it!  And that was with borland and DOS where one
uninitialized pointer, or equiv, meant you should probably reboot!  BTW, I
tell all C students I know about this, they never listen, and THEY get
confused TOO!

Some assembly languages have VERY few instructions.  My first one had
perhaps 50!  Few keywords DOESN'T always mean simpler!

> Secondly there is absolutely no reason to learn C before C++.  If you do
> not need to learn C go right ahead and just fucus on C++ and ignore C.
> The idea of learning C first is based on the myth that C is a subset of
> C++.

ACTUALLY, C IS!  SURE, some functions have been replaced, but they have
direct equivalents!  ALSO, the concept of pointers is the same, even if
obscured by the OO treatment.  ALSO, most C++ compilers(every one I have
seen) DO compile C!  ALSO, C is STILL more popular.  Just look at things
available on the internet!

> > COBOL, in case your curious, would be closer to basic, but come AFTER
> > it(unless you choose not to learn basic).
>
> COBOL is a dying langauge (although it may take years to die).  Learning
> COBOL is learning the past.  right now, because of Y2K issues, COBOL is
> paying EXTREMELY well, but anybody starting out now to learn COBOL will
> likely miss the big bucks associated with Y2K.

I will not state one way or the other here!  You are looking for flaming
though!

> ****************************************************************

> Why are there Braille signs on drive-up ATM's?

Why are there braille signs on ANY ATMS?  They ALL have different menu
choices, NO unique feedback, etc....  A blind person CAN'T reliably use
them!  For a sighted person, the braille on the keys is a PAIN!!!!!!

> I have an answering machine in my car.
>     It says "I'm home now.
>     But leave a message and I'll call when I'm out."

CUTE!

> =========================================
> Alicia Carla Longstreet     carla@ici.net
> =========================================
> READ THE FAQ for more information:
>    C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com or ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
>    Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

  Why d 0o you have a C faq when you like C++ so much?

[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3414 bytes --]

WOW!  We agree AGAIN! 8-)

Judson McClendon wrote:

> Alicia Carla Longstreet <carla@ici.net> wrote:
> >
> > BASIC should *NEVER* under any circumstances be taught to first time
> > programmers.  It is the worst possible language to use to teach
> > programming.  This tirade does not apply to the various modular
> > languages, like Visual Basic, that are not really BASIC but use Basic in
> > their names.
>
> You obviously learned this from books or someone else, not from experience in
> teaching others to program!  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with languages like
> APL or RPG?  Modern BASICs like QuickBasic are far and away superior to
> those, or C, for a beginning language.  QB supports formal subroutines and
> functions, with prototyping and data typing, constants, recursion, name
> scoping, data structures, etc.  You obviously don't know this, or you would
> hardly make such rashly silly statements.
>
> > C is actually a good first langauge.  The set of keywords is small so
> > the instructor can concentrate on concepts like  data types, structured
> > programming, modularity, encapsulation and data hiding,and algorithms
> > rather on a thousand and one commands needed to do all of the above.  A
> > beginner needs only <string.h> and <stdio.h> for the first semester, and
> > 60% of the functions in these can be safely ignored.  That leaves less
> > than 100 keywords that the beginner needs to learn.
>
> C is a *horrible* first language!  If you actually think learning C as a
> first language makes it easier, then you are running around out in the weeds
> somewhere, looking for home.  You either 1) don't know C, or 2) don't know
> anything else.  Talking about the 'number of keywords' in C, as if that were
> the difficulty issue, is farcical!  How are you going to teach them to input
> or output anything without getting into the standard functions?  Have you
> actually looked at how many C functions there are to handle I/O?  C is far
> and away more subtle and difficult to learn than BASIC.  You can't even
> discuss string handling in C getting into arrays, pointers, pointers to
> arrays, the host of string handling functions, etc.  You can't even discuss
> many of the basic functions like scanf() without discussing pointers,
> indirection, address-of, etc.  You start discussing all these concepts to a
> beginning student, and likely their eyes will glaze over.  Why start a
> beginner out in a language which requires assimilation of all these concepts
> before they can actually DO anything?  Many people have trouble abstracting
> their logic.  They need a beginning language which allows them to ease into
> the concepts, and build on what they've learned, without having to take on
> too much too soon.  It is very important, when starting to learn any
> completely new subject, that the student develop a feeling of confidence.  To
> achieve this, students need a beginning language in which they can get
> results early.  Anyone who has even a little experience in teaching others
> should know this.  Learning to program with C as a first language is like
> learning to ski on an 'extreme' slope!
> --
> Judson McClendon          This is a faithful saying and worthy of all
> Sun Valley Systems        acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the
> judmczzz@mindspring.com   world to save sinners  (1 Timothy 1:15)
> (please remove zzz from email id to respond)



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2415 bytes --]



Peter Seebach wrote:

> In article <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk>,
> Judson McClendon <judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >C is a *horrible* first language!  If you actually think learning C as a
> >first language makes it easier, then you are running around out in the weeds
> >somewhere, looking for home.  You either 1) don't know C, or 2) don't know
> >anything else.  Talking about the 'number of keywords' in C, as if that were
> >the difficulty issue, is farcical!
>
> I dunno; I actually found C very easy to learn.  When I was a kid, I could
> read C, even though I never wrote any back then.  It's *obvious*.
>

Either you don't know C, have seen little of it, or forget when you actually
learned it.  Pointers and & vs. && and | vs || are NOT obvious!  There is NO
direct correlation to any other language, and the only way to figure them
out(other than LEARNING from some other source) is by trial and error on a
computer!

> >How are you going to teach them to input
> >or output anything without getting into the standard functions?
>
> You're not.  So?  How are ou going to teach people to input or output
> anything in basic without getting into "PRINT"?

I think judd was saying that that lady was WRONG when she said that C only
required 2 headers and a few routines.

> >Many people have trouble abstracting their logic.
>
> Yes, and I doubt any of them will ever be successful or good programmers.

But they MIGHT become good!  Some ones that may be good might get scared by C!

> I was raised by mathematicians; I always thought C was a very friendly
> laguage.

Maybe you are like one person I knew once.  He was a great programmer AND blew
away his whole highschool math department and club(even the teachers!)!

His secret?  His father was an engineer, and got him into science/math at a VERY
early age!  He might not be able to tell you where he learn to do binomial
equations, etc....  *I* couldn't tell you when I learned to read schematics,
etc....

If you are fully serious and correct about your understanding C, it was NOT
because you figured it out by looking at it!

> -s
> --
> seebs@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer.  Copyright '97
> All rights reserved.  This was not sent by my cat.  C and Unix wizard -
> send mail for help, or send money for a consultation.  Visit my new ISP
> <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!  Plethora . Net



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5624 bytes --]



James Giles wrote:

> It's not a requirement, but C as a first language often teaches
> quite bad habits and ideas.  I mention three examples below,
> but these are the tip of the Iceburg.  These are merely things
> that I've recently (within the past few weeks) had to explain
> to someone because s/he was not getting the results or
> the speed s/he expected.  Over the years I've noticed that
> the quality of programs (and the quantity and quality of
> errors made) are all worse if the programmer's first language
> was C.  This applies to nearly all aspects of programming,
> from simple character manipulation to sophisticated data
> structures and from easy algorithms to large-scale programs.

I DOUBT this was because C taught them bad habits.

> I was horrified to learn just recently that many textbooks (and
> courses) for beginning C programmers still teach the use of
> gets().  This is a function that, if you mention it to beginners
> at all, you tell them *not* to use it under any circumstances.
> Use fgets() instead, so that you can tell the I/O library how
> large your buffer is and it can prevent it from being overrun.
> (Better yet, use fread() instead and scan for the record mark
> yourself, since fgets() doesn't inform you if you've only
> read a partial record.)  Just in case you think this is only
> a naive beginner's problem, there was a LINUX security
> problem because of exacly this sort of error (an overrun of
> a buffer - though I don't think it was gets() that was used).
> Bad habits and misconceptions resurface even in the code
> of 'gurus' who have presumably learned better -  but lapse
> sometimes.

ACTUALLY, Linux itself, and many programs, are SYSTEMS code!  Some
features can't or shouldn't be used, and it is ALWAYS more prone to
errors.  It surprises me how well Linux generally runs, and rarely
crashes!

> Many C programmers think that a (float ***) is the same
> thing as a multidimensional array - it isn't.  In most
> environments the resulting pointer-to-pointer-to---to float
> is much less efficient than an array and can lead to serious
> and difficult to find errors if you actually manipulate the
> pointers themselves a lot.  I just corresponded with
> someone who was complaining that Fortran couldn't
> remap arrays with pointer-to-pointer... mechanisms
> like C does.  I pointed out that Fortran has more
> efficient ways to reshape arrays (as does C) and that
> he shouldn't be using pointers so much anyway.

You don't do things like this until absolutely necessary.  I think there
is only ONE program I have done this with, and that is because it had to
interface with ANOTHER one that did the same(a run time interface).  NO,
it WASN'T LINUX!

> Indeed, C users tend to vastly overuse pointers in a lot of
> contexts.  If I mention to a group of programmers that I'm
> going to implement a given data set as a list, only the C
> programmers in the group tend to uniformly assume I'm
> going to use a linked list and pointers.  This is in spite of
> the fact that linked lists are almost always the *least*
> efficient way of implementing a list - and are more error
> prone as well.

This is because of the ones you talk to.  Maybe they all went to the
same class! 8-)

> There are actually an enormous number of things of this kind.
> I'm of the opinion that programming with good style can be
> taught regardless of the language used.  But it seems to me
> that C makes this more difficult and the issues involved aren't
> well addressed by the way C usually gets taught.  The above
> misconceptions are something that the C programmer will
> have to unlearn sometime in his(her) career.  This is true
> of a number of other C-isms that are quite common.  It'd
> be better for new programmers not to learn these false
> ideas in the first place.  Languages which tend not to induce
> bad habits (and were designed with teaching in mind) like
> Turing and Pascal would be better first languages (you
> can get bad habits from those as well - but fewer and easier
> to remedy).

To tell you the truth, I only use pointers:

When the amount of data can vary, and is large(if it is only a few dozen
items(maybe a few hundred), I use an array).
When the structure is unknown.
To pass info to/from a function.
When it will make things faster, and I need the speed.

I have converted some programs to DBL(a fortran like language), COBOL,
and C,. and all three look similar.  The C version isn't overrun with
pointers.  Then again, C was like the 9th language I learned.  Sadly, I
have forgotten most of the others. 8-(

> This brings to mind another C-ism (or, it seems to be a C
> programmer's position more than anyone else's): they tend
> not to learn any other languages (except C++ and other C
> derived languages).

I haven't seen that!  HECK, some WRITE new languages.

I have seen the situation you describe more with COBOL than anything
else!

> Indeed, they often come up with the
> most bizarre rationalizations for not bothering to learn other
> languages.  I think that C is so hard to learn to use *well*
> that most C programmers assume that the same is true for
> all other programming languages.

How many C programmers learned ONLY C?  I doubt that it is very many.

>  They, quite naturally,
> hesitate to embark on that path.  Instead they learn all
> the convenient (and usually false) criticisms of the other
> languages.
>
> Is any of this really relevant to comp.lang.(fortran, cobol,
> smalltalk, or ada)?

Probably NOT, but there IS a nice debate on C v. COBOL in the cobol
group! 8-(

>
>
> --
> J. Giles
> Ricercar Software



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2051 bytes --]



Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> In article <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com>,
> steve  <steve@seasoned-software.com> wrote:
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >--------------31D32D01009BB90DC2E214FF
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter Seebach wrote:
> >
> >> In article <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk>,
> >> Judson McClendon <judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:
>   There is NO
> >direct correlation to any other language, and the only way to figure them
> >out(other than LEARNING from some other source) is by trial and error on a
> >computer!
>
> I found C to be completely transparent and obvious, with a marvellous syntax.
> That same year, I independently found a C programming job in which I developed
> some DOS utilities that shipped.

Just wait....

> Prior to that I came from a modest background consisting of Pascal, 6502 and
> 8088 assembly language BASIC plus a little bit of Fortran 77 from a course I
> took previously.

Obviously, you weren't a beginner at programming! 8-)

> >If you are fully serious and correct about your understanding C, it was NOT
> >because you figured it out by looking at it!
>
> I don't know about Seebs, but I had help from a great book by Kernighan and
> Ritchie

Same here!  One of the smallest, yet most concise and respected, books ever
written!  If only they had similar books for the languages of today.  Heck, It was
almost a PAMPHLETT!  I wouldn't have taken it so seriously if it wasn't so highly
respected!It is ALSO an "OTHER SOURCE" like I alluded too.  I doubt you would have
hade the luck with the language without something like that.  That isn't saying that
you are lacking in intelligence, but that C is NOT immediately readable by anyone
without SOME help.

> . I had absolutely no problems sorting out the pointer and array
> issues immediately; I still don't understand what the fuss is about.

Well, I DID have some problems(although most WERE mistakes because I wasn't use to
it), and many others do.

[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[John Seitz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1897 bytes --]

I personally think Pascal in a great educational language.  However, if you
want to learn a something for the money Learn Powersoft's PowerBuilder.
Salaries for that programmer are very high.  Now don't get me wrong, I don't
think you want to see if you like programming by using Powerbuilder.

If you just want to tinker, I really like Delphi.  You learn about Objects
and datatypes.  You also get to play with a GUI builder.

John












Alicia Carla Longstreet wrote:

> BASIC should *NEVER* under any circumstances be taught to first time
> programmers.  It is the worst possible language to use to teach
> programming.  This tirade does not apply to the various modular
> languages, like Visual Basic, that are not really BASIC but use Basic in
> their names.
>
> C is actually a good first langauge.  The set of keywords is small so
> the instructor can concentrate on concepts like  data types, structured
> programming, modularity, encapsulation and data hiding,and algorithms
> rather on a thousand and one commands needed to do all of the above.  A
> beginner needs only <string.h> and <stdio.h> for the first semester, and
> 60% of the functions in these can be safely ignored.  That leaves less
> than 100 keywords that the beginner needs to learn.
>
> Secondly there is absolutely no reason to learn C before C++.  If you do
> not need to learn C go right ahead and just fucus on C++ and ignore C.
> The idea of learning C first is based on the myth that C is a subset of
> C++.
>
> > COBOL, in case your curious, would be closer to basic, but come AFTER
> > it(unless you choose not to learn basic).
>
> COBOL is a dying langauge (although it may take years to die).  Learning
> COBOL is learning the past.  right now, because of Y2K issues, COBOL is
> paying EXTREMELY well, but anybody starting out now to learn COBOL will
> likely miss the big bucks associated with Y2K.
>



[-- Attachment #2: Card for Seitz, John --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 191 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             John Seitz
n:              Seitz;John
email;internet: seitz@pobox.com
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

It's not a requirement, but C as a first language often teaches
quite bad habits and ideas.  I mention three examples below,
but these are the tip of the Iceburg.  These are merely things
that I've recently (within the past few weeks) had to explain
to someone because s/he was not getting the results or
the speed s/he expected.  Over the years I've noticed that
the quality of programs (and the quantity and quality of
errors made) are all worse if the programmer's first language
was C.  This applies to nearly all aspects of programming,
from simple character manipulation to sophisticated data
structures and from easy algorithms to large-scale programs.

I was horrified to learn just recently that many textbooks (and
courses) for beginning C programmers still teach the use of
gets().  This is a function that, if you mention it to beginners
at all, you tell them *not* to use it under any circumstances.
Use fgets() instead, so that you can tell the I/O library how
large your buffer is and it can prevent it from being overrun.
(Better yet, use fread() instead and scan for the record mark
yourself, since fgets() doesn't inform you if you've only
read a partial record.)  Just in case you think this is only
a naive beginner's problem, there was a LINUX security
problem because of exacly this sort of error (an overrun of
a buffer - though I don't think it was gets() that was used).
Bad habits and misconceptions resurface even in the code
of 'gurus' who have presumably learned better -  but lapse
sometimes.

Many C programmers think that a (float ***) is the same
thing as a multidimensional array - it isn't.  In most
environments the resulting pointer-to-pointer-to---to float
is much less efficient than an array and can lead to serious
and difficult to find errors if you actually manipulate the
pointers themselves a lot.  I just corresponded with
someone who was complaining that Fortran couldn't
remap arrays with pointer-to-pointer... mechanisms
like C does.  I pointed out that Fortran has more
efficient ways to reshape arrays (as does C) and that
he shouldn't be using pointers so much anyway.

Indeed, C users tend to vastly overuse pointers in a lot of
contexts.  If I mention to a group of programmers that I'm
going to implement a given data set as a list, only the C
programmers in the group tend to uniformly assume I'm
going to use a linked list and pointers.  This is in spite of
the fact that linked lists are almost always the *least*
efficient way of implementing a list - and are more error
prone as well.

There are actually an enormous number of things of this kind.
I'm of the opinion that programming with good style can be
taught regardless of the language used.  But it seems to me
that C makes this more difficult and the issues involved aren't
well addressed by the way C usually gets taught.  The above
misconceptions are something that the C programmer will
have to unlearn sometime in his(her) career.  This is true
of a number of other C-isms that are quite common.  It'd
be better for new programmers not to learn these false
ideas in the first place.  Languages which tend not to induce
bad habits (and were designed with teaching in mind) like
Turing and Pascal would be better first languages (you
can get bad habits from those as well - but fewer and easier
to remedy).

This brings to mind another C-ism (or, it seems to be a C
programmer's position more than anyone else's): they tend
not to learn any other languages (except C++ and other C
derived languages).  Indeed, they often come up with the
most bizarre rationalizations for not bothering to learn other
languages.  I think that C is so hard to learn to use *well*
that most C programmers assume that the same is true for
all other programming languages.  They, quite naturally,
hesitate to embark on that path.  Instead they learn all
the convenient (and usually false) criticisms of the other
languages.

Is any of this really relevant to comp.lang.(fortran, cobol,
smalltalk, or ada)?

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert Robbins]

John Seitz wrote:
> 
> I personally think Pascal in a great educational language.  However, if you
> want to learn a something for the money Learn Powersoft's PowerBuilder.
> Salaries for that programmer are very high.  Now don't get me wrong, I don't
> think you want to see if you like programming by using Powerbuilder.
> 
> If you just want to tinker, I really like Delphi.  You learn about Objects
> and datatypes.  You also get to play with a GUI builder.
> 
> John
> 
John,
	Pascal used to be popular for teaching data structures but it
is not ideal for beginners. I think these language debates are
pointless.
You should just learn as many languages as possible. I've gone to the
trouble of obtaining virtually every PC compiler available (even RPG!)
so I can dabble in them all. COBOL is my favorite because its a
procedural
language and less cryptic than any other language. You can write COBOL
in
complete sentences! Nobody should hestitate to pick up a little COBOL.

				Robert Robbins

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3696 bytes --]



James Giles wrote:

> steve wrote in message <3498B5A6.C404C703@seasoned-software.com>...
> ...
> >ACTUALLY, Linux itself, and many programs, are SYSTEMS code!  Some
> >features can't or shouldn't be used, and it is ALWAYS more prone to
> >errors.  It surprises me how well Linux generally runs, and rarely
> >crashes!
>
> An interesting attitude.  The system is the one component of
> the programming environment that everyone *must* use every
> time they use the computer.  It *should* be the most robust,
> efiicient, and secure piece of code on the machine.

You're right(and I said always more PRONE), but there always seems to be
problems somewhere.  Especially if you are constantly upgrading it like
Linux.  Whenever *I* see an error, it almost always gets fixed in the next
release.

> The attitude
> that it needn't be seems to be a UNIXism.

Most of what people consider UNIX is in peripheral programs.  It isn't a
part of the kernel itself.One error in Linux that I have seen that I never
saw fixed(although others didn't seem to have the problem), is with
support of >2GB drives.  THAT is one place where tricks have to be
pulled.  I noticed that my disk repair utilities(though the latest from
the author) aren't doing such things, though Linux IS.

> To be sure, pre-UNIX
> systems had security an reliability problems (they were trying to
> make general purpose use of hardware we would now consider
> inadequate to run a toaster).

Well, TODAY all you have to do is diasable the fans, and VOILA!  TOAST!
8-)

> There's no excuse for this attitude
> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
> efficient.

And windows with its DLLS is?  What of the security problems in IE4?  ...

> >How many C programmers learned ONLY C?  I doubt that it is very many.
>
> Well, you're welcome to your perceptions.  I'd guess that
> only about 1 in 10 C (C++, maybe Java, etc...) programmers
> I've ever met had any real substantial experience with any
> language outside that group.

OK, I have different experiences with C programmers.

> Unless you count AWK or SED
> as real languages!  Yet those with the least knowlwdge of other
> languages are always the quickest to dismiss languages
> with pat excuses ("Ada is too big", well it's smaller than C++
> and more cleanly designed - "Fortran makes you use GOTOs
> all the time", well it has all the "structured" flow control of any
> other language and actually restricts the use of GOTO more
> than C does - etc...).
>
> Now, among other things, I have in the past provided on-site
> maintenence for C compilers at a national laboratory.  I dealt
> with C programmers from around the world and at a time when
> they could *not* claim that the language never caused them any
> problems: when they had a bug they couldn't identify or fix.  So,
> while your perception may be different than mine, I'll still claim
> that mine is at least as valid.  I'll say one thing, C programmers
> are extremely loyal: they always accept the blame for their bugs.
> Even when it's a kind of bug I see often in C programs and almost
> never in any other language, they don't blame the language.

Well, most things common to C that you would call bugs ARE generally
called features.  It IS easier to make a mistake in C.  I never heard
anyone claim otherwise!  Although I HAVE seen COBOL people blame the
compiler for mistakes(and it often WAS responsible), THEY are certainly a
lowal group too!

> --
> J. Giles
> Ricercar Software



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1727 bytes --]



James Giles wrote:

> steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>...
> >
> >
> >James Giles wrote:
> ...
> >> There's no excuse for this attitude
> >> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
> >> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
> >> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
> >> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
> >> efficient.
> >
> >And windows with its DLLS is?  What of the security problems in IE4?  ...
>
> Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
> lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
> stage.  He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX
> was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and
> 'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence.  He just
> figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own
> systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades.
> To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that
> the lesson was clearly understood.

ACTUALLY, UNIX is MORE stable than WINDOWS.  Just basing that on a few dozen
systems I have seen at various sites, articles, and newsgroups.1

> If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most
> of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others)
> would be out of work.  The ratio of installed systems to system
> maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
> of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
> 1000 (or higher).

ACTUALLY, the average car seems too much like Windows! 8-(

> --
> J. Giles
> Ricercar Software



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3013 bytes --]



James Giles wrote:

> Peter Seebach wrote in message <67enk6$skq$11@darla.visi.com>...
> ...
>
> >Unix is the most reliable and stable thing you can get these days.
> >The competition is what, NT?  MacOS?  '95?
>
> Isn't it funny how times change?  Back when UNIX was the
> *least* reliable and stable system for mainframes, minis, and
> high-end worstations it was promoted as being the de-facto
> standard that everyone had to switch to because all the
> Universities used it (they used it because, a decade before
> that, it was *free* - not because they thought it was any
> good).  It's unreliability was dismissed as being less important
> than compatibility.  Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

I don't know about THAT!  It is certainly one of the most powerful/flexible O/S
out there!In raw power/flexibility/standards, I don't think it has an equal.

> >>There's no excuse for this attitude
> >>today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
> >>UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
> >
> >Uhm.  I work in support, and we get angry calls if the system crashes.
> >Ever.  We don't get compliments on reliability until over a year of
> >uptime on a small machine with thousands of users and a few hundred active
> >web pages.  (BSDI 1.1, no less, which is a pretty old system by now.)
>
> The reliability of UNIX has improved over the last decade (though not
> its user interface).  It is still less reliable than many systems that
> were developed for mainframes and minis *after* UNIX (in the late
> '70s and early '80s).  And it is still fairly insecure.  Finally, it's still
> less efficient, larger, and less powerful than many of those systems
> were.  All those better systems are now in the waste tip, mainly
> because UNIX promoted compatibility as more important than any
> of those other attributes (even when it wasn't *really* all that widespread
> itself - the *claim* was made that it was the de-facto standard).

HOW do you want its "user interface" to improve?  X-WINDOWS has or can quickly
have, EVERY functional feature of M/S WINDOWS NT(they even have environments
that LOOK like WIN95!  It is faster, more standard(with older software, and
UNIX), etc...

INSECURE?  That depends on how it is setup, etc....  MOST tcp/ip functionality
and login functionality is OUTSIDE of the kernel!  It can be changed ALL OVER
THE PLACE!  M/S windows has a LOT of security problems!

Less efficient?  larger?(Running an 8MB 386 system here is FASTER than a
microvax with 9MB!)!  Less powerful?  DREAM ON!  THAT is why POSIX was designed
by the IEEE on/for UNIX, and every other system strievs to be "POSIX COMPLIANT"?

GEE, I think you are confusing UNIX with M/S WINDOWS!

> As I said, the *perception* of reliability being relatively unimportant
> was originally a UNIX-ism no matter what you think today.

Well, I have heard ex-IBM salesmen(that sold MAINFRAMES) say that the same was
true of the systems THEY sold!

> --
> J. Giles
> Ricercar Software



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Klaus-Georg Adams]

tadmc@metronet.com (Tad McClellan) writes:

> 
> Mark Framness (framness@EMIRATES.NET.AE) wrote:
> : In message <34958D16.190C@gsg.eds.com> - "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
> : <nospam@gsg.eds.com>Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:03:34 -0800 writes:
> : #>
> 
> : #>> C provides the needed primitives to do anything you need.  
> : #>
> : #>You got this wrong; C does not have the needed primitives to handle
> : #>sets, do string matching, do record-oriented I/O, etc., except in the
> : #>trivial sense that anything can be simultated on anything else.
> 
> : What do you mean sets?  As in the mathematical sense?  String matching?  Huh? 
> : what do strcmp, strstr etc do?
>           ^^^^^^  ^^^^^^
> 
> Those are not *primitives* (ie. built-in to the language).
> 
> Those are library calls (ie. add-ons to the language).
> 
> You won't find 'strcmp' in a C compiler's grammar.

Which is of course completely irrelevant. They are part of the
language definition (as in ANSI Standard).

-- kga
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klaus-Georg Adams        Email: Klaus-Georg.Adams@chemie.uni-karlsruhe.de
Institut f. Anorg. Chemie II                           Tel: 0721 608 3485
Uni Karlsruhe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Alicia Carla Longstreet]

steve wrote:
> 
> Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
> > > Mix wrote:
> > > >hich language will pay top 17457 in the long run?
> >
> > If you are truly not able to learn several languages, then--for
> > "the long run"--you need to learn a language that endures - Cobol,
> > Fortran, Ada, even (shudder) C.  Not a fad language like C++ or
> > Java.  Java is certainly superior to C, but at present, there's
> > no guarantee that it will still be widely used three years from now.
> >
> > I find it humorous that the original poster was smart enough to ask
> > users of eight languages, but some of the replies assume C++ and
> > Java are the only options!
> 
> AHHHH, We DIDN'T assume!  The subject INDICATES it!
> PERSONALLY, I say that C should be learned almost last.  If you learn
> C++, that should be learned AFTER C!  BASIC is a winner for the first
> language.

BASIC should *NEVER* under any circumstances be taught to first time
programmers.  It is the worst possible language to use to teach
programming.  This tirade does not apply to the various modular
languages, like Visual Basic, that are not really BASIC but use Basic in
their names.

C is actually a good first langauge.  The set of keywords is small so
the instructor can concentrate on concepts like  data types, structured
programming, modularity, encapsulation and data hiding,and algorithms
rather on a thousand and one commands needed to do all of the above.  A
beginner needs only <string.h> and <stdio.h> for the first semester, and
60% of the functions in these can be safely ignored.  That leaves less
than 100 keywords that the beginner needs to learn.

Secondly there is absolutely no reason to learn C before C++.  If you do
not need to learn C go right ahead and just fucus on C++ and ignore C. 
The idea of learning C first is based on the myth that C is a subset of
C++.
 
> COBOL, in case your curious, would be closer to basic, but come AFTER
> it(unless you choose not to learn basic).

COBOL is a dying langauge (although it may take years to die).  Learning
COBOL is learning the past.  right now, because of Y2K issues, COBOL is
paying EXTREMELY well, but anybody starting out now to learn COBOL will
likely miss the big bucks associated with Y2K.

-- 
****************************************************************
What is the speed of dark?
When you're sending someone Styrofoam, what do you pack it in?
Why are there Braille signs on drive-up ATM's?
How come you never hear about gruntled employees?
I have an answering machine in my car.
    It says "I'm home now.
    But leave a message and I'll call when I'm out."
=========================================
Alicia Carla Longstreet     carla@ici.net
=========================================
READ THE FAQ for more information:
   C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com or ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
   Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Peter Seebach]

In article <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk>,
Judson McClendon <judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:
>C is a *horrible* first language!  If you actually think learning C as a
>first language makes it easier, then you are running around out in the weeds
>somewhere, looking for home.  You either 1) don't know C, or 2) don't know
>anything else.  Talking about the 'number of keywords' in C, as if that were
>the difficulty issue, is farcical!

I dunno; I actually found C very easy to learn.  When I was a kid, I could
read C, even though I never wrote any back then.  It's *obvious*.

>How are you going to teach them to input
>or output anything without getting into the standard functions?

You're not.  So?  How are ou going to teach people to input or output
anything in basic without getting into "PRINT"?

>Many people have trouble abstracting their logic.

Yes, and I doubt any of them will ever be successful or good programmers.

I was raised by mathematicians; I always thought C was a very friendly
laguage.

-s
-- 
seebs@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer.  Copyright '97
All rights reserved.  This was not sent by my cat.  C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation.  Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!  Plethora . Net

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com>,
steve  <steve@seasoned-software.com> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------31D32D01009BB90DC2E214FF
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>
>> In article <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk>,
>> Judson McClendon <judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >C is a *horrible* first language!  If you actually think learning C as a
>> >first language makes it easier, then you are running around out in the weeds
>> >somewhere, looking for home.  You either 1) don't know C, or 2) don't know
>> >anything else.  Talking about the 'number of keywords' in C, as if that were
>> >the difficulty issue, is farcical!
>>
>> I dunno; I actually found C very easy to learn.  When I was a kid, I could
>> read C, even though I never wrote any back then.  It's *obvious*.
>>
>
>Either you don't know C, have seen little of it, or forget when you actually
>learned it.  Pointers and & vs. && and | vs || are NOT obvious!  There is NO
>direct correlation to any other language, and the only way to figure them
>out(other than LEARNING from some other source) is by trial and error on a
>computer!

I learned C in two weeks sufficiently well to write an small interpreted
language wht a flavor similar to PostScript---this was in my second year at
university.  The program consisted of some 13 modules or so, quite adequately
divided according to abstract data types. I had a  number of key types used
inside the interpreter, and I used reference counts to know when a structure
is or is not in use. The user of the program was able to select this driver by
name using a command line option.  The program had an abstract graphics driver
architecture centered around a structure containing function pointers. I gave
the architecture spec along with a header file to a more experienced
programmer and he wrote me an XWindow driver that was able to display the
graphics produced by the interpreted program; the ``standard'' driver
output a matrix of text characters representing the raster display.

I found C to be completely transparent and obvious, with a marvellous syntax.
That same year, I independently found a C programming job in which I developed
some DOS utilities that shipped.  

Prior to that I came from a modest background consisting of Pascal, 6502 and
8088 assembly language BASIC plus a little bit of Fortran 77 from a course I
took previously. 

>> >Many people have trouble abstracting their logic.
>>
>> Yes, and I doubt any of them will ever be successful or good programmers.
>
>But they MIGHT become good!  Some ones that may be good might get scared by C!

I think that people who have trouble abstracting their logic will make
excellent C programmers. :)

>If you are fully serious and correct about your understanding C, it was NOT
>because you figured it out by looking at it!

I don't know about Seebs, but I had help from a great book by Kernighan and
Ritchie. I had absolutely no problems sorting out the pointer and array
issues immediately; I still don't understand what the fuss is about.

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

steve wrote in message <3498B5A6.C404C703@seasoned-software.com>...
...
>ACTUALLY, Linux itself, and many programs, are SYSTEMS code!  Some
>features can't or shouldn't be used, and it is ALWAYS more prone to
>errors.  It surprises me how well Linux generally runs, and rarely
>crashes!

An interesting attitude.  The system is the one component of
the programming environment that everyone *must* use every
time they use the computer.  It *should* be the most robust,
efiicient, and secure piece of code on the machine.  The attitude
that it needn't be seems to be a UNIXism.  To be sure, pre-UNIX
systems had security an reliability problems (they were trying to
make general purpose use of hardware we would now consider
inadequate to run a toaster).  There's no excuse for this attitude
today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
efficient.

...
>How many C programmers learned ONLY C?  I doubt that it is very many.

Well, you're welcome to your perceptions.  I'd guess that
only about 1 in 10 C (C++, maybe Java, etc...) programmers
I've ever met had any real substantial experience with any
language outside that group.  Unless you count AWK or SED
as real languages!  Yet those with the least knowlwdge of other
languages are always the quickest to dismiss languages
with pat excuses ("Ada is too big", well it's smaller than C++
and more cleanly designed - "Fortran makes you use GOTOs
all the time", well it has all the "structured" flow control of any
other language and actually restricts the use of GOTO more
than C does - etc...).

Now, among other things, I have in the past provided on-site
maintenence for C compilers at a national laboratory.  I dealt
with C programmers from around the world and at a time when
they could *not* claim that the language never caused them any
problems: when they had a bug they couldn't identify or fix.  So,
while your perception may be different than mine, I'll still claim
that mine is at least as valid.  I'll say one thing, C programmers
are extremely loyal: they always accept the blame for their bugs.
Even when it's a kind of bug I see often in C programs and almost
never in any other language, they don't blame the language.

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Larry Elmore]

steve wrote in message <3498887C.D58135C0@seasoned-software.com>...
>
>Alicia Carla Longstreet wrote:

<snip>

>> C is actually a good first langauge.  The set of keywords is small so
>> the instructor can concentrate on concepts like  data types, structured
>> programming, modularity, encapsulation and data hiding,and algorithms
>> rather on a thousand and one commands needed to do all of the above.  A
>> beginner needs only <string.h> and <stdio.h> for the first semester, and
>> 60% of the functions in these can be safely ignored.  That leaves less
>> than 100 keywords that the beginner needs to learn.

IMHO, Ada 95 is a better first language. Yes, it's large, but the student
doesn't have to learn _everything_. A subset of Ada is still quite powerful
and certainly teaches use of _all_ the programming concepts listed above
better than is possible with C.

<snip>

>Some assembly languages have VERY few instructions.  My first one had
>perhaps 50!  Few keywords DOESN'T always mean simpler!


Too true! C++ cuts down on the keyword count by having some keywords do
completely different things in different contexts. 'virtual' is the one that
stands out in my mind, but it's not the only one with multiple meanings.
This certainly doesn't make the language easier to understand, and can be
confusing to newcomers.

Larry

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Mark Wilden]

Robert Robbins wrote:
> 
>         Pascal used to be popular for teaching data structures but it
> is not ideal for beginners. I think these language debates are
> pointless.

Not at all. You just made one yourself. :)

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Chip Ling]

Alicia Carla Longstreet wrote:
>
> BASIC should *NEVER* under any circumstances be taught to first time
> programmers.  It is the worst possible language to use to teach
> programming.  This tirade does not apply to the various modular
> languages, like Visual Basic, that are not really BASIC but use Basic in
> their names.
> 
> C is actually a good first langauge.  The set of keywords is small so
> the instructor can concentrate on concepts like  data types, structured
> programming, modularity, encapsulation and data hiding,and algorithms
> rather on a thousand and one commands needed to do all of the above.  A
> beginner needs only <string.h> and <stdio.h> for the first semester, and
> 60% of the functions in these can be safely ignored.  That leaves less
> than 100 keywords that the beginner needs to learn.

To me C is the same as BASIC. I prefer Pascal when from the TEACHING
POINT OF VIEW. At least it is a strongly typed language. But it just
does not matter at all.
 
> Secondly there is absolutely no reason to learn C before C++.  If you do
> not need to learn C go right ahead and just fucus on C++ and ignore C.
> The idea of learning C first is based on the myth that C is a subset of
> C++.

To me all languages are the same, all can be used as the first
programming
language. Depending what the purpose of the course is. There is more
than
one subject for a compute major course anyway. I remember back in the
old
time I learn Pascal, COBOL, RGP, PROLOG when I was in the Polytechnic. I
never had a course on C, but I learn it, my tutor gave me a project that
must be written in C. And I borrowed some books from the library. And
that
is, what so difference about C. Just wonder why a lot of people love C
so
much. To me, it is just another programming language.

> COBOL is a dying langauge (although it may take years to die).  Learning
> COBOL is learning the past.  right now, because of Y2K issues, COBOL is
> paying EXTREMELY well, but anybody starting out now to learn COBOL will
> likely miss the big bucks associated with Y2K.

100% agree but I also consider C, Ada, Java and any language you can
name it are the same. THEY ARE ALL DYING... The only difference is
which die first. But it does not really matter to me. As long as I
still can find a job in the market using C or COBOL. I'm good at
both believe it or not.

I've experience with C, BASIC and COBOL for my living (not for fun),
I still think that COBOL are the best when we are talking about
maintainability. It's fun to tackle all those bugs if our project
or task does not have a time limit. Unfortunately, it is not the
case in real-life. Just think about you are called at 3:00 AM
in the morning with a program abended in production, you have to
fix it before 8:00AM (Sorry, you don't have any choice, it's a 
do it or die situation). You look at the source, keep on asking
yourself, what the hell this genius is trying to do... You will
love COBOL.

Rgds,
Chip Ling
chipling@sympatico.ca

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Larry Elmore wrote in message <67duab$bnf@netra.montana.edu>...
...
>Too true! C++ cuts down on the keyword count by having some keywords do
>completely different things in different contexts. 'virtual' is the one
that
>stands out in my mind, but it's not the only one with multiple meanings.
>This certainly doesn't make the language easier to understand, and can be
>confusing to newcomers.

It borrows that trait from ordinary C.  After all 'static' sometimes means
something similar to Fortran's 'SAVE' or Algol's 'own variables' and
other time 'static' means something similar to Ada's 'Private' attribute.

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>...
>
>
>James Giles wrote:
...
>> There's no excuse for this attitude
>> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
>> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
>> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
>> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
>> efficient.
>
>And windows with its DLLS is?  What of the security problems in IE4?  ...

Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
stage.  He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX
was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and
'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence.  He just
figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own
systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades.
To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that
the lesson was clearly understood.

If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most
of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others)
would be out of work.  The ratio of installed systems to system
maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
1000 (or higher).

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Peter Seebach wrote in message <67enk6$skq$11@darla.visi.com>...
...

>Unix is the most reliable and stable thing you can get these days.
>The competition is what, NT?  MacOS?  '95?

Isn't it funny how times change?  Back when UNIX was the
*least* reliable and stable system for mainframes, minis, and
high-end worstations it was promoted as being the de-facto
standard that everyone had to switch to because all the
Universities used it (they used it because, a decade before
that, it was *free* - not because they thought it was any
good).  It's unreliability was dismissed as being less important
than compatibility.  Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

...

>
>>There's no excuse for this attitude
>>today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
>>UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
>
>Uhm.  I work in support, and we get angry calls if the system crashes.
>Ever.  We don't get compliments on reliability until over a year of
>uptime on a small machine with thousands of users and a few hundred active
>web pages.  (BSDI 1.1, no less, which is a pretty old system by now.)

The reliability of UNIX has improved over the last decade (though not
its user interface).  It is still less reliable than many systems that
were developed for mainframes and minis *after* UNIX (in the late
'70s and early '80s).  And it is still fairly insecure.  Finally, it's still
less efficient, larger, and less powerful than many of those systems
were.  All those better systems are now in the waste tip, mainly
because UNIX promoted compatibility as more important than any
of those other attributes (even when it wasn't *really* all that widespread
itself - the *claim* was made that it was the de-facto standard).

As I said, the *perception* of reliability being relatively unimportant
was originally a UNIX-ism no matter what you think today.

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Quowong P Liu]

In article <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com>,
appearing in comp.lang.fortran, Mix <mixmaster@remail.obscura.com> writes,

>The question is, which language will pay top 17457 in the long run?

Where the heck does 17457 come from?

Bill Gates is rich.  What language does Bill Gates like?


I don't see why anyone who'll be programming professionally
shouldn't be able to pick up the essentials of Fortran(90/95/hpf),
C, C++, Eiffel, Java, Smalltalk, perl, or Ada(95) in short order,
especially with a good grounding in object oriented programming.
(I notice no languages emphasizing functional programming are in
the list.)

-- 
qpliu.sbtrj3mjmclfclcclcnfclecljpclsclpmclace@born.ph.utexas.edu

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

steve wrote in message <3499CCC4.A4C37C38@seasoned-software.com>...
...
>> To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that
>> the lesson was clearly understood.
>
>ACTUALLY, UNIX is MORE stable than WINDOWS.  Just basing that on a few
dozen
>systems I have seen at various sites, articles, and newsgroups.1

That's what I said.  Bill Gates has surpassed UNIX in its instability,
insecurity, inefficiency, and complex programming environment.
He really learned the lesson well.

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ian Upright]

John Seitz <seitz@pobox.com> wrote:

>I personally think Pascal in a great educational language.  However, if you
>want to learn a something for the money Learn Powersoft's PowerBuilder.
>Salaries for that programmer are very high.  Now don't get me wrong, I don't
>think you want to see if you like programming by using Powerbuilder.
>
>If you just want to tinker, I really like Delphi.  You learn about Objects
>and datatypes.  You also get to play with a GUI builder.
>
>John

I've always thought the programming language HyperTalk, used in HyperCard on
the Mac was by far and wide the best beginning language.  It's simple and
easy, and people can be programming in minutes.  One would soon outgrow it,
as it isn't a very powerful environment, but the concepts are still there.
It's a completely dynamic environment, where you can modify code and
instantly see the results of a change.  Yet another important feature of a
learning environment.  If you can't tinker quickly, and have to wade though
a lengthy compile and dozens of compiler switches, a newbie would be lost in
no-time.

Ian

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Peace Summit Technologies                              ian@peacesummit.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  http://www.peacesummit.com/ian/home.html

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[William J. Leary Jr.]

Quowong P Liu wrote in message <67evu7$9db$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>Bill Gates is rich.  What language does Bill Gates like?


From what he said in the interview I saw (which had to have been a bit
dated, they were talking about Win 3.1 as "current.") the answer is: Basic.

    - Bill

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[William Murray]

In article <34ff11df.753819154@news.peacesummit.com>,
   ian@peacesummit.com (Ian Upright) wrote:
>John Seitz <seitz@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>I personally think Pascal in a great educational language.  However, if you
(snip)
>>John
>
>I've always thought the programming language HyperTalk, used in HyperCard on
>the Mac was by far and wide the best beginning language.  It's simple and
>easy, and people can be programming in minutes.  One would soon outgrow it,
>(snip)
>
>Ian
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peace Summit Technologies                              ian@peacesummit.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  http://www.peacesummit.com/ian/home.html

It is interesting the criteria for deciding on the first language to learn.  
The 2 year technical college in my old hometown had as their FIRST COURSE for 
Comp Sci majors - 370 Assembler.  The reasoning was that AL immerses the 
student in the "basic" structure of the machine and the operating system.  At 
least that was the stated reason; I also heard that the "real" reason was a 
"survival of the fittest" test.  It weeded out those students who could write 
"simple" programs in easier languages but did not have the skills/desire to 
handle complex systems.

NOTE: I don't really agree with this viewpoint; just thought it would be 
interesting to introduce a different view.  Of course, that was a long time 
ago and they have probably changed to a truly cryptic language, like C. <g>

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1745 bytes --]



William Murray wrote:

> In article <34ff11df.753819154@news.peacesummit.com>,
>    ian@peacesummit.com (Ian Upright) wrote:
> >John Seitz <seitz@pobox.com> wrote:
>



> It is interesting the criteria for deciding on the first language to learn.
> The 2 year technical college in my old hometown had as their FIRST COURSE for
> Comp Sci majors - 370 Assembler.  The reasoning was that AL immerses the
> student in the "basic" structure of the machine and the operating system.

REDICULOUS!  And they got people to BELIEVE them?  The STRUCTURE depends on the
machine.  You don't operate on a frog to learn the structure of a human.
Sructures CAN be similar, but often vary greatly.  The 370 doesn't run DOS,
WINDOWS, UNIX, VMS, etc....  So MOST people will learn NOTHING of the OS!

> At
> least that was the stated reason; I also heard that the "real" reason was a
> "survival of the fittest" test.  It weeded out those students who could write
> "simple" programs in easier languages but did not have the skills/desire to
> handle complex systems.

Well, it would backfire!  Some that would learn would get scared.  Some 370
programmers are NOT good programmers.

> NOTE: I don't really agree with this viewpoint; just thought it would be
> interesting to introduce a different view.  Of course, that was a long time
> ago and they have probably changed to a truly cryptic language, like C. <g>

Well, at least C is something they can use elsewhere, is popular, and has a
STANDARD set of Portable Operating System Interface (functions) eXtended(AKA
POSIX)!

It ALSO has things that are just as complicated as assembly, so they might have
their "weed out" feature too.

Of course, I do NOT consider C a good first language to learn.

Steve



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Peter Seebach]

In article <67dc5k$o02@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
James Giles <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>An interesting attitude.  The system is the one component of
>the programming environment that everyone *must* use every
>time they use the computer.  It *should* be the most robust,
>efiicient, and secure piece of code on the machine.

Indeed!

>The attitude that it needn't be seems to be a UNIXism.

What the hell are you talking about?

Unix is the most reliable and stable thing you can get these days.
The competition is what, NT?  MacOS?  '95?

>There's no excuse for this attitude
>today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
>UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.

Uhm.  I work in support, and we get angry calls if the system crashes.
Ever.  We don't get compliments on reliability until over a year of
uptime on a small machine with thousands of users and a few hundred active
web pages.  (BSDI 1.1, no less, which is a pretty old system by now.)

I don't know what you think you're talking about; I have used crash-prone
systems running pre-release alpha versions of Unix, or using unsupported
kernel hacks, but I've never had any trouble with a real release.

>Well, you're welcome to your perceptions.  I'd guess that
>only about 1 in 10 C (C++, maybe Java, etc...) programmers
>I've ever met had any real substantial experience with any
>language outside that group.

You must have met a very specialized, stupid, group of C programmers.

>Unless you count AWK or SED
>as real languages!

Awk is certainly a real language.  Sed probably is - I've seen
a cellular automaton in sed.  You give it one line of input, and it
runs forever.

(For instance, if you gave it
	aaabbbabab
it would say
	[-][-]----
	------[--]
	[----]----
	-[--]-[--]
	----------
	[--------]
	-[------]-
	...
or something similar.)

>Yet those with the least knowlwdge of other
>languages are always the quickest to dismiss languages
>with pat excuses ("Ada is too big", well it's smaller than C++
>and more cleanly designed - "Fortran makes you use GOTOs
>all the time", well it has all the "structured" flow control of any
>other language and actually restricts the use of GOTO more
>than C does - etc...).

Yes, indeed.  Perhaps you have less knowledge of other languages
than some of the folks here who use C and five other languages?

>I'll say one thing, C programmers
>are extremely loyal: they always accept the blame for their bugs.
>Even when it's a kind of bug I see often in C programs and almost
>never in any other language, they don't blame the language.

Well, of *course*.  You can't be a good programmer in any language if
you won't accept responsibility for writing code correctly.

However, I will point out that bad programmers in every language are
very quick to blame the compiler.

-s
-- 
seebs@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer.  Copyright '97
All rights reserved.  This was not sent by my cat.  C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation.  Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!  Plethora . Net

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kurt Watzka]

"William J. Leary Jr." <Bill_Leary@msn.com> writes:

> Kaz Kylheku wrote in message <67gvpa$m3t$1@brie.direct.ca>...
>>The library is part of the language, you buffoon, the same way that basic
>>words like  'air' and 'water' are part of English.

>Not that I've ever noticed.  I frequently use C compilers to target embedded
>systems.  We pretty much always discard the standard library and bring up
>our own basic library for the features we actually need.  The standard
>library pretty much is always hooked into the OS (or OS's)  the compiler is
>targeting.  Since we're usually either on the iron, or on an RTOS the
>standard stuff the standard library want's isn't usuall there.

What Kaz Kylheku is missing is the word "hosted environement". He knows
quite well that in a hosted environment, all the functions, macros,
type definitions, and objects described in the library clause may
be used, whereas in a freestanding environment (for example, an implementation
targeting your average toaster), and libary facilities available to
a program are implementation-defined.

>>In C, the standard library functions have special status.
>> First of all, their names are reserved external symbols.

>Not usually.  Their "special status" comes from the fact that they get put
>into the symbol table because you always include "stdio.h" or "stdlib.h" or
>whatever.

Not so. The names are reserved in a hosted environment no matter what 
headers are included. This is what Kaz was trying to tell you.
"All identifiers with external linkage in any of the following (i.e
the library) subclauses including the future library directions
are always reserved for use as identifiers with external linkage" 
cannot be interpreted in a way that restricts the reservation to 
compilation units that include certain standard headers.

> In some cases a compiler will pay special attention to some of
>the routines (like strcpy) so it can inline them
>automagically.

I doubt that it is allowed to do so in a freestanding environenment
without explicitly stating that fact in its documentation.

> In all cases where I've seen this there's been a compiler
>switch to turn it off.

Again, the point is the difference between a freestanding environement
and a hosted environment. In a freestanding environment, the name and
type of the function called at program startup are implementation defined.
It may well be "void ToasterStart(float TimerSetting)". There are otherwise
no reserved external identifiers in a freestanding environment. This means
that you are indeed free to use names in your toaster control program 
that would be reserved identifiers in a program targeting a hosted
environment. 

>I've dumped the standard library lots of times and written new routines for
>some of the standard features and never had a compiler or linker complain
>about them.

>> If any C program contains an external definition of an identifier that is
>an external name
>> reserved by the standard library, the behavior is undefined.

This means that neither the compiler nor the linker is obliged in any
way to complain about the redefinition of functions from the standard
library, but the behaviour of such a program is still undefined. "It 
worked so far" is a _very_ weak proof of correctness, given that 
undefined behaviour may well be limited to Thursdays before Friday
the 13th in odd years.

>If you link in the standard library, you usually get a linker error, unless
>the linker isn't too bright.  If you don't link in the library, it usually
>just works as expected.  That is, your routine which replaced, say, fputc,
>just gets linked in.

This need not be true in a hosted environment. The compiler may well
inline calls to fputc(), or generate calls to __libc_term_FPUTC instead.

>>Secondly, if you include a standard header, you may not redeclare any
>symbol
>>in that standard header, not even in a nested scope.

>Done it several times.  Program started in DOS, so I needed the standard
>libs for progress messages.  Switched to protected mode in high memory and
>zapped DOS in low RAM for buffers.  Used my own fputc and so forth after
>that.

You wouldn't mind telling us which companies use or sell your products,
would you?

>> I'm not talking about optimization. I'm talking about recognition of
>standard
>> functions as thought they where primitives. The C standard permits an
>> implementation to do that.

>Yep, some compilers will do that.  Metaware, for example, will catch memcpy
>and optimize it for the 80x86 REPT modifier.  It can be turned off with a
>compile time switch, because it's NOT part of the C langauge but rather is
>the compiler maker noticing a chance to get you better executing code by
>implementing one of the standard library functions as if it were a language
>primitave.

The possibility that the definition of the C programming language indeed
does permit what Kaz claims it to permit does obviously escape you. An
implementation of the C programming language is free to recognize calls
to functions from the standard C library as special cases and treat them
in a special way. If you think that this is not so, don't try to prove
your point with statements like "I tried it once and it looked as if it
worked on the implementation I was using at that time". Try to find some
text in the language definition that supports your point of view.

Kurt

-- 
| Kurt Watzka                             Phone : +49-89-2178-2781
| watzka@stat.uni-muenchen.de

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[William J. Leary Jr.]

>Kurt Watzka wrote in message <67hg7m$g9f$1@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>...
>>"William J. Leary Jr." <Bill_Leary@msn.com> writes:
>>> Kaz Kylheku wrote in message <67gvpa$m3t$1@brie.direct.ca>...
--- ((..omitted..))
>What Kaz Kylheku is missing is the word "hosted environement".

Yes, very good.  THAT makes a lot of sense, and I've seen that myself.
Still, that's the environment, not the langauge specification for C.

--- ((..omitted..))
>>Not usually.  Their "special status" comes from the fact that they get put
>>into the symbol table because you always include "stdio.h" or "stdlib.h"
or
>>whatever.
>
> Not so. The names are reserved in a hosted environment no matter what
> headers are included.

Again, I agree.  The environment might well require that.  The language
spec. doesn't.

> This is what Kaz was trying to tell you.

Not me.  he was writing to someone else.

> "All identifiers with external linkage in any of the following (i.e
> the library) subclauses including the future library directions
> are always reserved for use as identifiers with external linkage"
> cannot be interpreted in a way that restricts the reservation to
> compilation units that include certain standard headers.

Yep, no disagreement.  But we seem to be getting rather far afield of the
argument I was commenting on, which *appeared* to be that the C language
_itself_ included the standard library.

>> In some cases a compiler will pay special attention to some of
>>the routines (like strcpy) so it can inline them
>>automagically.
>
>I doubt that it is allowed to do so in a freestanding environenment
>without explicitly stating that fact in its documentation.


Yes. The one I used (Metaware) and reviewed (Orin? Ordin? I'm not sure...
years ago) both had notes in their compiler switches section about these
features.  Metaware also included it in the debugging section, since it was
impossible to set a breakpoint on, say, strcpy if it was inlined.

>> In all cases where I've seen this there's been a compiler
>> switch to turn it off.
>
>Again, the point is the difference between a freestanding environement
>and a hosted environment.

I absolutely agree with you.  However, the thread of conversation I reviewed
didn't seem to be talking about operation under an environment.  It seemed
to be a discussion about the basic C language and it's supposed inclusion of
the standard library as part of that language.

> In a freestanding environment, the name and type of the function called at
program
> startup are implementation defined. It may well be "void
ToasterStart(float
> TimerSetting)". There are otherwise no reserved external identifiers in a
freestanding
> environment. This means that you are indeed free to use names in your
toaster control
> program  that would be reserved identifiers in a program targeting a
hosted
> environment.

Agreed again.

>> I've dumped the standard library lots of times and written new routines
for
>> some of the standard features and never had a compiler or linker complain
>> about them.
>
>>> If any C program contains an external definition of an identifier that
is
>>> an external name reserved by the standard library, the behavior is
undefined.
>
> This means that neither the compiler nor the linker is obliged in any
> way to complain about the redefinition of functions from the standard
> library, but the behaviour of such a program is still undefined. "It
> worked so far" is a _very_ weak proof of correctness, given that
> undefined behaviour may well be limited to Thursdays before Friday
> the 13th in odd years.

No disagreement here either.


>> If you link in the standard library, you usually get a linker error,
unless
>> the linker isn't too bright.  If you don't link in the library, it
usually
>> just works as expected.  That is, your routine which replaced, say,
fputc,
>> just gets linked in.
>
>This need not be true in a hosted environment. The compiler may well
>inline calls to fputc(), or generate calls to __libc_term_FPUTC instead.


It might well inline the function, but inlining is a performance issue.
It's not supposed to break the integrity of the program in doing so.  On the
other hand, I don't disagree with you or him here.  If the compiler writer
has chosen to make such things primative AND doesn't pass on the symbols for
the inlined to the linker, so they can be caught if re-used incorrectly,
then of course it's undefined.

>>> Secondly, if you include a standard header, you may not redeclare any
>>> symbol in that standard header, not even in a nested scope.
>
>>Done it several times.  Program started in DOS, so I needed the standard
>>libs for progress messages.  Switched to protected mode in high memory and
>>zapped DOS in low RAM for buffers.  Used my own fputc and so forth after
>>that.
>
>You wouldn't mind telling us which companies use or sell your products,
>would you?

The Bytex Series 7700 Token Ring / Ethernet Programmable Hub.

Long before the product got to market we'd eliminated the DOS stage and
booted directly into protected mode from a modified BIOS, but the initial
system did indeed work this way.

The other I'm not at liberty to discuss due to non-disclosure agreements.

>>> I'm not talking about optimization. I'm talking about recognition of
standard
>>> functions as thought they where primitives. The C standard permits an
>>> implementation to do that.
>
>> Yep, some compilers will do that.  Metaware, for example, will catch
memcpy
>> and optimize it for the 80x86 REPT modifier.  It can be turned off with a
>> compile time switch, because it's NOT part of the C langauge but rather
is
>> the compiler maker noticing a chance to get you better executing code by
>> implementing one of the standard library functions as if it were a
language
>> primitave.
>
> The possibility that the definition of the C programming language indeed
> does permit what Kaz claims it to permit does obviously escape you.

Not at all.  I've read the ANSI C spec and it clearly leave a lot of leeway
about how things are implemented.  I agreed.

> An implementation of the C programming language is free to recognize calls
> to functions from the standard C library as special cases and treat them
in a
> special way.

Yep.  I agreed with that.  No argument at all.  In fact, I provided an
example of an compiler I'd used which did just that.

> If you think that this is not so, don't try to prove your point with
statements like "I tried
> it once and it looked as if it worked on the implementation I was using at
that time".

I didn't.  I pointed out how one specific implementation (Metaware) had both
done the optimization route AND complied with the language spec by providing
a switch to turn off the inlines.

> Try to find some text in the language definition that supports your point
of view.


Supports it how?

My point of view is that the C _language_ does not include the C
_standard_library_ functions as part of the _language_.  A particular C
programming environment may well do something other than this, and that's
their option.

I don't see what it is I'm supposed to use to support my point of view,
unless you'd like me to quote the entire language and end up saying "no
standard library primitives found herein."

For that matter, whether you'd like me to do that or not, perhaps you can
point me to a place on the net where the ANSI C spec is available.  I've
just done a search and I've found the ANSI C++ spec, but can't find the ANSI
C spec.  The one I had belonged to my former employer and I had to leave it
there when I left the company.

    - Bill

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <349B0417.D4DB6A30@its.cl>,
Guillermo Schwarz  <gschwarz@its.cl> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------EC36FA96B4325E47CB41380A
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
>> In article <e9k976.8h3.ln@localhost>, Tad McClellan <tadmc@metronet.com> wrote:
>> >: what do strcmp, strstr etc do?
>> >          ^^^^^^  ^^^^^^
>> >
>> >Those are not *primitives* (ie. built-in to the language).
>> >
>> >Those are library calls (ie. add-ons to the language).
>>
>> Nonsense. They are standard parts of the C language required by the ISO
>> standard.
>
>The standard C library, but not he standard C language.In the same way, other
>languages have standard libraries.
>Some have huge libraries, as Smalltalk does.

The library is part of the language, you buffoon, the same way that basic
words like  'air' and 'water' are part of English.

In C, the standard library functions have special status. First of all, their
names are reserved external symbols. If any C program contains an external
definition of an identifier that is an external name reserved by the standard
library, the behavior is undefined.

Secondly, if you include a standard header, you may not redeclare any symbol
in that standard header, not even in a nested scope.

>> >You won't find 'strcmp' in a C compiler's grammar.
>>
>> I use a compiler which will inline functions like strcpy() and abs().
>
>It has nothing to do with optimization. The point is that C has no built-in support
>for Strings.

I'm not talking about optimization. I'm talking about recognition of standard
functions as thought they where primitives. The C standard permits an
implementation to do that.

>Even worse, that optimization can be a bug.
>What if I define a class:

Doh! You can't define a class in C.

>class foo()
>{
>public:
>      char * strcmp( char * a, char * b ) { ... }
>     void bar()
>     {
>           ...
>           strcmp( a, b );
>           ...
>      }
>};
>
>I wouldn't expect the compiler to "optimize" my code.

The above is C++, not C. It defines strcmp as a member function of class foo.
It cannot possibly be mistaken  for the strcmp in <string.h>.  It's full
name is foo::strcmp. It also has a different type signature.
Do you have any clue how compilers work? The name strcmp will be looked up
in a symbol table for the current scope. The compiler will recognize
that it belongs to the class scope foo:: so that it cannot possibly be
the standard function.

In C, it's like this: a strictly conforming program may not define its own
strcmp() function with external linkage. If you want to write your own strcmp,
you would have to give it internal linkage using the static keyword: static
int strcmp(...) { ... }.  You are then forbidden from including the <string.h>
header in that translation unit.  The compiler is then required to recognize
that you have defined your own strcmp and no longer treat it as a built-in
primitive.

It works just fine in GCC, for instance.

[ nyc.foods, misc.jobs.* trimmed from header ]

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[William J. Leary Jr.]

 Kaz Kylheku wrote in message <67gvpa$m3t$1@brie.direct.ca>...
>The library is part of the language, you buffoon, the same way that basic
>words like  'air' and 'water' are part of English.


Not that I've ever noticed.  I frequently use C compilers to target embedded
systems.  We pretty much always discard the standard library and bring up
our own basic library for the features we actually need.  The standard
library pretty much is always hooked into the OS (or OS's)  the compiler is
targeting.  Since we're usually either on the iron, or on an RTOS the
standard stuff the standard library want's isn't usuall there.

>In C, the standard library functions have special status.
> First of all, their names are reserved external symbols.

Not usually.  Their "special status" comes from the fact that they get put
into the symbol table because you always include "stdio.h" or "stdlib.h" or
whatever.  In some cases a compiler will pay special attention to some of
the routines (like strcpy) so it can inline them
automagically.  In all cases where I've seen this there's been a compiler
switch to turn it off.

I've dumped the standard library lots of times and written new routines for
some of the standard features and never had a compiler or linker complain
about them.

> If any C program contains an external definition of an identifier that is
an external name
> reserved by the standard library, the behavior is undefined.

If you link in the standard library, you usually get a linker error, unless
the linker isn't too bright.  If you don't link in the library, it usually
just works as expected.  That is, your routine which replaced, say, fputc,
just gets linked in.

>Secondly, if you include a standard header, you may not redeclare any
symbol
>in that standard header, not even in a nested scope.

Done it several times.  Program started in DOS, so I needed the standard
libs for progress messages.  Switched to protected mode in high memory and
zapped DOS in low RAM for buffers.  Used my own fputc and so forth after
that.

> I'm not talking about optimization. I'm talking about recognition of
standard
> functions as thought they where primitives. The C standard permits an
> implementation to do that.

Yep, some compilers will do that.  Metaware, for example, will catch memcpy
and optimize it for the 80x86 REPT modifier.  It can be turned off with a
compile time switch, because it's NOT part of the C langauge but rather is
the compiler maker noticing a chance to get you better executing code by
implementing one of the standard library functions as if it were a language
primitave.

> ((.. omitted..))
> In C, it's like this: a strictly conforming program may not define its own
> strcmp() function with external linkage. If you want to write your own
strcmp,
> you would have to give it internal linkage using the static keyword:
static
> int strcmp(...) { ... }.  You are then forbidden from including the
<string.h>
> header in that translation unit.  The compiler is then required to
recognize
> that you have defined your own strcmp and no longer treat it as a built-in
> primitive.
>
>It works just fine in GCC, for instance.


I just realized here that you guys may be discussing two different things.

It sounds like one of you is arguing about the C language itself, and the
other is arguing about what makes up a standard C program.  The library
isn't part of the language.  Look at the syntax diagrams for the language.
There's no library features in there.  On the other hand, a standard C
program, one which is in compliance with the specs, does include that
library stuff.

    - Bill

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert Munck]

On Fri, 19 Dec 97 12:36:12 GMT, billg@ALOHA.NET (William Murray)
wrote:
>The 2 year technical college in my old hometown had as their FIRST COURSE for 
>Comp Sci majors - 370 Assembler.

So did we, at Brown University in 1967.  (Well, it was 360 Assembler).


>  The reasoning was that AL immerses the 
>student in the "basic" structure of the machine and the operating system.

That's what we said at the time.  I don't think we were entirely
right, but of that group of students, a half-dozen or more have
been Chair of the CS Dept. at places like MIT, Princeton,
U of WA, Maryland, and Waterloo. Others are chief technologists
at Microsoft, Pixar, Sun, SGI, etc. There must have been some
validity to the idea. 

Bob Munck
Mill Creek Systems

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[William J. Leary Jr.]

Peter Seebach wrote in message <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com>...
>Then you're using "freestanding environments", which are a separate
language.
>The library is, indeed, part of the hosted environment form of C.


As I've said in several other messages which have forked off this main one,
it was my understanding that the argument was over the LANGUAGE, not the
ENVIRONMENT.

The language spec (the part that says 'if means this, = means this, ++ means
this and so on) doesn't include that standard library jazz or specify that
things like "memcpy" are reserved words.  The reserved words there are
things like "if," "for," "switch" and so forth.  In that spec you won't find
"memcpy" along with "switch" as a reserved word.

The hosted environment may well do so.

The compilers I used (Metaware, Microsoft C/C++, and a few others we
evaluated but didn't use for production work) all did just what you say.  If
we targeted DOS or UNIX or what have you, there were definite limitations on
what we could do.  If we target nothing (or embedded, or whatever option the
compiler required) we could use any name we felt like for any purpose
whatever.

    - Bill

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[James Giles]

Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:
...
>>Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
>>lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
>>stage.
>
>The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was
>an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix
>has very little relevance here.

On the contrary.  The stage was the choice between, first CP/M
and then DOS on the one hand, or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation)
and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine
if you bought the mini).  That was the percieved choice of business users
circa 1980.  DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the
other choice.  They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for
the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time.
Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional
personel to support UNIX but not DOS.

I remember this because I was there.  I was rather amused by the
debate at the time because it didn't have much to do with me: at
work I used mainframes (which no one in those days would have
suggested using UNIX on) and at home I was a hobbyist without
the means to buy either a mini or a high-cost workstation.  A few
years later I had a SUN on my desk at work though (can't say I was
impressed, but it did have a really big screen).

>Whether you believe it is adequate or not Unix has a security system
>built in, it is a significant issue in the OS. If BG learnt anything
>from Unix it would have been that security is an issue. Clearly he
>didn't. I apologise for getting drawn into this troll.

To be sure, UNIX has better security than DOS and Windows (which have
none at all) but it's not really very secure.  In any case, when I mentioned
security as a desirable asset, I had in mind comparing the system to
other multi-user systems.  Only one UNIX implementation I've ever heard
of met Orange Book category B requirements (at the lowest level of
category B and only with enormous changes to how it did security).
Systems exist (or used to, before the UNIX revolution) which meet
category B and impose less of a burden on users in terms of confusion
and maintenence than UNIX security does.

And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's
*defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems
software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software.  What kind of
a defense is that?  Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that
assessment (including the person who originally said it).

...
> [...]  The ratio of installed systems to system
>>maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
>>of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
>>1000 (or higher).
>
>What systems are you aware of that have this sort of ratio (and I mean
>systems that service user applications, not things like embedded systems)?

CTSS (Cray, at DOE labs) used to support several thousand users
with a system maintenence staff of about a half a dozen.  And, that
was not a mass-produced system, but an internally produced one
(you'd expect an in-house system to have *more* maintenence
problems, not less).  UNIX installations supporting this number of
users invariably require many times the support staff.  (In spite of
the fact that they're now running a vendor-supplied and vendor-supported
UNIX, I understand the labs have *more* of their own personel doing
system support than before.)  Furthermore, the users in such an
environment tend to be more demanding (full contact programming:
their applications are always right on the edge of what's actually
computationally feasible on the fastest hardware available) and
UNIX doesn't provide the same performance and reliability as CTSS
did.

>When security becomes a burden to the users it becomes counter-productive.

Yes, and UNIX manages to be both a burden and non-secure at the
same time.  For example, having each file independently specify access
permissions *sounds* like a convenient thing, but it increases the burden.
Most people forget to set or check their settings and/or set all their files
with the same privilages.  Doing so fails to use even what security UNIX
has.

Of course, the access privilages of files are a way in which the users
themselves can contribute to system insecurity, but they aren't in
themselves they main causes of UNIX being insecure.  That rests
in a lot of other bad design decisions.

I'm not saying that security never introduces a burden on the user,
but it is possible to design a security system that is less burdensome
than what UNIX has and yet is more secure.

Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect; that ideas
for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've
described *might* have merit.  The only people I can think of who'd actually
oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are
to maintain the existing ones.

Well, argue it out among yourselves and Happy Holidays.  I'm
leaving and probably will not see another round of this "discussion".

--
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2740 bytes --]



Lawrence Kirby wrote:

> In article <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com>
>            steve@seasoned-software.com "steve" writes:
>
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >--------------31D32D01009BB90DC2E214FF
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter Seebach wrote:
> >
> >> In article <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk>,
> >> Judson McClendon <judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >C is a *horrible* first language!  If you actually think learning C as a
> >> >first language makes it easier, then you are running around out in the weeds
> >> >somewhere, looking for home.  You either 1) don't know C, or 2) don't know
> >> >anything else.  Talking about the 'number of keywords' in C, as if that were
> >> >the difficulty issue, is farcical!
> >>
> >> I dunno; I actually found C very easy to learn.  When I was a kid, I could
> >> read C, even though I never wrote any back then.  It's *obvious*.
> >>
> >
> >Either you don't know C, have seen little of it, or forget when you actually
> >learned it.
>
> The primary(?) moderator of comp.lang.c.moderated does (I can conform)
> know the language quite well and I suspect that he has seen a fair amount
> of it. He is also a member of the standards committee (although they seem
> to let any old riffraff in there! :-) )
>
> > Pointers and & vs. && and | vs || are NOT obvious!
>
> IMHO they are when reading code to get an idea of what it does. You have
> to know a bit more about then to write code.
>
> > There is NO
> >direct correlation to any other language, and the only way to figure them
> >out(other than LEARNING from some other source) is by trial and error on a
> >computer!
>
> If you have some code that uses them it shouldn't take too long to work out
> what they do.
>
> ...
>
> >If you are fully serious and correct about your understanding C, it was NOT
> >because you figured it out by looking at it!
>
> I don't see why not. I learnt to read 386 assembly well enough by simply
> looking at compiler output.

Two observations!:

1. Assembly generally uses MNEMONICS, and most are relatively easy to
understand(although 32 bit code on older 8086 based systems could drive you nuts if
you don't know about segments).  Also, literal compares will tell you something
about what the previous command(s) do.  That isn't as common in hand written code
for those types of commands.

2. You probably KNEW what the code would end up doing, and generally what it would
do, because it was "compiler output".



>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
> Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
> -----------------------------------------



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[steve]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6625 bytes --]



James Giles wrote:

> Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>...
> >In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
> >           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:
> ...
> >>Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
> >>lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
> >>stage.
> >
> >The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was
> >an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix
> >has very little relevance here.
>
> On the contrary.  The stage was the choice between, first CP/M
> and then DOS on the one hand

DOS 1.0 was CP/M 86 from seattle microworks(a workalike to CP/M from digital
research)!  They were basically the SAME THING!!!!!!

> , or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation)
> and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine
> if you bought the mini).  That was the percieved choice of business users
> circa 1980.

WRONG!  The average business couldn't consider UNIX!  WHY?  Because it was
harder to use, had fewer reasonably priced(and easy to get) programs, and few
even knew about it!  GIVE ME A BREAK!  ALSO, UNIX was made to run under larger
systems.  It couldn't run well under the 8086 system until they got MMUs!  The
FIRST 8086 with an MMU was the 80386!  SURE, some companies tried to make it run
on the 286, and some even did things earlier, but the were effectively toys!

> DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the
> other choice.

YEAH RIGHT!  Like the average business would have spent over 10 times as much
for software if they respected UNIX, and even KNEW about it?  Dream on!

>  They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for
> the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time.

UNIX COULDN'T be more reliable!  UNIX is a full blown operating system with
security, networking, message passing, multitasking, multiuser, etc.....

DOS was merely a Disk Operating System!  Almost NONE of the above.  Try getting
DOS to multitask!  MOST of the products(such as desqview) made it LESS reliable
than UNIX, and it didn't do much of the other stuff UNIX does.

> Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional
> personel to support UNIX but not DOS.

> I remember this because I was there.  I was rather amused by the
> debate at the time because it didn't have much to do with me: at
> work I used mainframes (which no one in those days would have
> suggested using UNIX on) and at home I was a hobbyist without
> the means to buy either a mini or a high-cost workstation.

Well, UNIX is now running on almost every machine!  IBM RS/6000 and DEC ALPHAs
BOTH run UNIX!  With IBM, it is first choice.  With The alpha, it might be
second to NT!

>  A few
> years later I had a SUN on my desk at work though (can't say I was
> impressed, but it did have a really big screen).

It will only impress the one that uses the features.  It's made to get the job
done and done well, not to impress.

> >Whether you believe it is adequate or not Unix has a security system
> >built in, it is a significant issue in the OS. If BG learnt anything
> >from Unix it would have been that security is an issue. Clearly he
> >didn't. I apologise for getting drawn into this troll.

Well, DOS was clearly NOT a UNIX replacement.

> To be sure, UNIX has better security than DOS and Windows (which have
> none at all) but it's not really very secure.

Try breaking into most UNIX systems.  It isn't that easy.  MOST security
problems are due to common problems in peripheral programs.

> In any case, when I mentioned
> security as a desirable asset, I had in mind comparing the system to
> other multi-user systems.  Only one UNIX implementation I've ever heard
> of met Orange Book category B requirements (at the lowest level of
> category B and only with enormous changes to how it did security).
> Systems exist (or used to, before the UNIX revolution) which meet
> category B and impose less of a burden on users in terms of confusion
> and maintenence than UNIX security does.

Actually, there ARE some very secure systems that meet the highest security
levels.

And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's

> *defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems
> software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software.  What kind of
> a defense is that?  Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that
> assessment (including the person who originally said it).

That's right, blame me.  I said more PRONE.  Obviously, most people want to work
the kinks aout BEFORE anyone sees them.  ALSO, it is more complicated.  SCO
STILL has problems with some pretty basic code.  I ALSO always state that I have
NEVER had my linux system crash unexpectedly.  It RARELY crashes!  BTW, it
crashes LESS than my first DOS system did!  That first dos system would crash
because of some bad third party code, or because I found a problem in debugging
my code.  Linux doesn't have that problem!...

> > [...]  The ratio of installed systems to system
> >>maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
> >>of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
> >>1000 (or higher).
> >
> >What systems are you aware of that have this sort of ratio (and I mean
> >systems that service user applications, not things like embedded systems)?
>

>

<diatribe snipped>

> I'm not saying that security never introduces a burden on the user,
> but it is possible to design a security system that is less burdensome
> than what UNIX has and yet is more secure.

If it is "less burdensome", it will have less, and can be more   secure.  You
can do that with UNIX!

> Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
> me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
> than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect; that ideas
> for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've
> described *might* have merit.  The only people I can think of who'd actually
> oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are
> to maintain the existing ones.

ACTUALLY, UNIX is a GREAT kernel!  It has evolved GREATLY over the years.  Why
change commands, and rewrite WORKING code, to satisfy your requests?

> Well, argue it out among yourselves and Happy Holidays.  I'm
> leaving and probably will not see another round of this "discuss it among
> yourselves"

>
>
> --
> J. Giles
> Ricercar Software



[-- Attachment #2: Card for steve --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 265 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             steve
n:              ;steve
org:            SEASONED SOFTWARE
email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com
note:           notes would be here!
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Peter Seebach]

In article <ObfZp4YD9GA.296@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>Not that I've ever noticed.  I frequently use C compilers to target embedded
>systems.

Then you're using "freestanding environments", which are a separate language.
The library is, indeed, part of the hosted environment form of C.

-s
-- 
seebs@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer.  Copyright '97
All rights reserved.  This was not sent by my cat.  C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation.  Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!  Plethora . Net

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Peter Seebach]

In article <#vJ8k2aD9GA.169@upnetnews03>,
William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>Yes, very good.  THAT makes a lot of sense, and I've seen that myself.
>Still, that's the environment, not the langauge specification for C.

Except that it is in the language specification for C; C defines what
a hosted environment is, including the entire library, and, in a hosted
environment, there is no reason at all to assume that you can replace or
affect the standard library in any way, however trivial.

Note followups.

-s
-- 
seebs@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer.  Copyright '97
All rights reserved.  This was not sent by my cat.  C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation.  Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!  Plethora . Net

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:

>
>steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>...
>>
>>
>>James Giles wrote:
>...
>>> There's no excuse for this attitude
>>> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
>>> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
>>> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
>>> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
>>> efficient.
>>
>>And windows with its DLLS is?  What of the security problems in IE4?  ...
>
>Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
>lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
>stage.

The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was
an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix
has very little relevance here.

> He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX
>was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and
>'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence.

Please state your sources.

> He just
>figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own
>systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades.
>To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that
>the lesson was clearly understood.

Whether you believe it is adequate or not Unix has a security system
built in, it is a significant issue in the OS. If BG learnt anything
from Unix it would have been that security is an issue. Clearly he
didn't. I apologise for getting drawn into this troll.

>If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most
>of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others)
>would be out of work.  The ratio of installed systems to system
>maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
>of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
>1000 (or higher).

What systems are you aware of that have this sort of ratio (and I mean
systems that service user applications, not things like embedded systems)?
When security becomes a burden to the users it becomes counter-productive.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com>
           seebs@plethora.net "Peter Seebach" writes:

>In article <ObfZp4YD9GA.296@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
>William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>>Not that I've ever noticed.  I frequently use C compilers to target embedded
>>systems.
>
>Then you're using "freestanding environments", which are a separate language.
>The library is, indeed, part of the hosted environment form of C.

Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved
even in a freestandinhg environment?

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <34988B10.40F82420@seasoned-software.com>
           steve@seasoned-software.com "steve" writes:

>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------31D32D01009BB90DC2E214FF
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>
>> In article <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk>,
>> Judson McClendon <judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >C is a *horrible* first language!  If you actually think learning C as a
>> >first language makes it easier, then you are running around out in the weeds
>> >somewhere, looking for home.  You either 1) don't know C, or 2) don't know
>> >anything else.  Talking about the 'number of keywords' in C, as if that were
>> >the difficulty issue, is farcical!
>>
>> I dunno; I actually found C very easy to learn.  When I was a kid, I could
>> read C, even though I never wrote any back then.  It's *obvious*.
>>
>
>Either you don't know C, have seen little of it, or forget when you actually
>learned it.

The primary(?) moderator of comp.lang.c.moderated does (I can conform)
know the language quite well and I suspect that he has seen a fair amount
of it. He is also a member of the standards committee (although they seem
to let any old riffraff in there! :-) )

> Pointers and & vs. && and | vs || are NOT obvious!

IMHO they are when reading code to get an idea of what it does. You have
to know a bit more about then to write code.

> There is NO
>direct correlation to any other language, and the only way to figure them
>out(other than LEARNING from some other source) is by trial and error on a
>computer!

If you have some code that uses them it shouldn't take too long to work out
what they do.

...

>If you are fully serious and correct about your understanding C, it was NOT
>because you figured it out by looking at it!

I don't see why not. I learnt to read 386 assembly well enough by simply
looking at compiler output.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>,
Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com>
>           seebs@plethora.net "Peter Seebach" writes:
>
>>In article <ObfZp4YD9GA.296@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
>>William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>>>Not that I've ever noticed.  I frequently use C compilers to target embedded
>>>systems.
>>
>>Then you're using "freestanding environments", which are a separate language.
>>The library is, indeed, part of the hosted environment form of C.
>
>Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved
>even in a freestandinhg environment?

Yes they are! Absolutely! A freestanding implementation of C is allowed
to provide as much or as little of the standard library.

In any case, the C standard does not define any notion of a ``freestanding
program''. In particular, it provides no interpretation for the meaning
of such programs. 

For instance, a ``freestanding program'' might begin execution in a function
called 'init'. But the C standard only provides an interpretation for programs
that start in a function 'main' that returns int and takes either no arguments
or exactly two arguments of type int and char ** respectively.
A conforming implementation of C could well reject a program whose
startup function is called init.

Strictly speaking, such freestanding programs are not standard C; they are
examples of a local adaptation of C. 

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kurt Watzka]

fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) writes:

>In article <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com>
>           seebs@plethora.net "Peter Seebach" writes:

>>In article <ObfZp4YD9GA.296@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
>>William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>>>Not that I've ever noticed.  I frequently use C compilers to target embedded
>>>systems.
>>
>>Then you're using "freestanding environments", which are a separate language.
>>The library is, indeed, part of the hosted environment form of C.

>Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved
>even in a freestandinhg environment?

How about "In a freestanding environment the name and type of the function
called at program startup are implementation-defined. There are otherwise
no reserved external identifiers". I read that as excluding the reservation
of external identifiers defined in the library clause in a freestanding 
environment. What am I missing?

Kurt

-- 
| Kurt Watzka                             Phone : +49-89-2178-2781
| watzka@stat.uni-muenchen.de

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Peter Seebach]

In article <e8Hnv5nD9GA.93@upnetnews04>,
William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>As I've said in several other messages which have forked off this main one,
>it was my understanding that the argument was over the LANGUAGE, not the
>ENVIRONMENT.

There are two languages.  "printf" is as much a part of the C language
as "++" is.  Yes, there's a form of the C language in which there may or
may not be any printf - but in that form, you don't even know where
programs start, so we don't care much.

>The language spec (the part that says 'if means this, = means this, ++ means
>this and so on) doesn't include that standard library jazz or specify that
>things like "memcpy" are reserved words.  The reserved words there are
>things like "if," "for," "switch" and so forth.  In that spec you won't find
>"memcpy" along with "switch" as a reserved word.

No, you find it in a different section, because it is a different *kind*
of reserved word.  (For instance, it is reserved only as an identifier
with external linkage, when reserved at all, or possibly also as a macro
in some cases.)

>The compilers I used (Metaware, Microsoft C/C++, and a few others we
>evaluated but didn't use for production work) all did just what you say.  If
>we targeted DOS or UNIX or what have you, there were definite limitations on
>what we could do.  If we target nothing (or embedded, or whatever option the
>compiler required) we could use any name we felt like for any purpose
>whatever.

True - they were compiling a different language.  The C spec provides
for two very different things, both called C.

-s
-- 
seebs@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer.  Copyright '97
All rights reserved.  This was not sent by my cat.  C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation.  Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!  Plethora . Net

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Guillermo Schwarz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --]



James Giles wrote:

>   Back when UNIX was the
> *least* reliable and stable system for mainframes, minis, and
> high-end worstations it was promoted as being the de-facto
> standard that everyone had to switch to because all the
> Universities used it (they used it because, a decade before
> that, it was *free* - not because they thought it was any
> good).

> All those better systems are now in the waste tip, mainly
> because UNIX promoted compatibility as more important than any
> of those other attributes (even when it wasn't *really* all that widespread
> itself - the *claim* was made that it was the de-facto standard).
>

  It is not clear to me why the Smalltalk environment was not taken as an
standard,
given that it was the most easily portable language and the whole environment
was
written in Smalltalk.

If Smalltalk would have been free in the 80's, UNIX would have been in the waste
tip too.

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Guillermo  Schwarz --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 312 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Guillermo  Schwarz
n:              Schwarz;Guillermo 
org:            ITS
email;internet: gschwarz@its.cl
title:          Software Engineer
note:           Remove stop.spam to reply by mail.
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[John Porter]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> 
> Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved
> even in a freestandinhg environment?

With the possible exception of environments for embedded development,
the identifiers defined in the standard or any other library are not
reserved words.  If I don't include string.h, I am free to use the
id 'memcpy' for my own purposes.  Even if I do link with a library which
defines memcpy, my definition overrides it.  I'm not sure how you can
construe this to mean that 'memcpy' is in any way "reserved".

John Porter
jporter@logicon.com

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34A14C27.57C0@min.net>, John Porter  <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>> 
>> Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved
>> even in a freestandinhg environment?
>
>With the possible exception of environments for embedded development,
>the identifiers defined in the standard or any other library are not
>reserved words.  If I don't include string.h, I am free to use the
>id 'memcpy' for my own purposes.  Even if I do link with a library which

False. Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
it is a reserved 'external name'. External names defined by the C library are
reserved as external names regardless of what header you include.
(An external name is an identifier with external linkage).

Not only are those names reserved, but certain external name SPACES are
reserved! A strictly conforming program may not define any external
name that begins with 'mem' followed by any combination of letters,
digits or underscores. This is true even though the library doesn't
currently define anything else in that category other than 'memcpy'
or 'memmove'. However, 'mem' itself is not reserved because it's
not followed by any letters, digits or underscores. Similarly,
identifiers beginning with 'to' and 'is' are reserved for future
extensions to <ctype.h>, and identifiers starting 'str' are reserved
for future extensions to <string.h>.

I have set up my Vim 5.0 editor to colorize any occurence of an identifier
that belongs to the forbidden name spaces. :)

>defines memcpy, my definition overrides it.  I'm not sure how you can
>construe this to mean that 'memcpy' is in any way "reserved".

You are sadly mistaken. In fact your overriding definition must have static
linkage, otherwise your program invokes undefined behavior. Moreover, if you
write such a static function, you must not include the <string.h> header in
the same translation unit, else undefined behavior results.

There is no such thing as ``overriding'' in C. Each external name must
have exactly one definition if it is used anywhere in the program.
Additionally, an external name that is declared but never referenced, is
permitted to be without an external definition.

Overriding of library functions (via ``weak symbols'' or some other such
resolution mechanism) is possible as a system-specific extension.

How I can construe all this is by interpreting the fine words written 
in a document entitled _American National Standard for Programming
Languages---C_, ANSI/ISO 9899:1990.

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Richard D Riehle]

In article <67evu7$9db$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
	jeer.btrj3clfclcclcclecljpclsclpmclace@born.ph.utexas.edu (Quowong P
Liu) wrote:

>In article <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com>,

>Bill Gates is rich.  What language does Bill Gates like?

It really doesn't matter what language Bill Gates likes.  Gates is
first a businessman and second a technologist.  He likes BASIC and
its derivatives because that is the one technology to which he
personally made a programming contribution.  Nearly every other early
product from Microsoft, especially MS-DOS, was created by someone 
else and later resold under the Microsoft label.  Sadly, the fact that
Tim Patterson wrote MS-DOS and was tricked out of getting full credit
for his work by Microsoft is not well-known. 

As to which language is the "best" first language, the answer is,

Ada, Assembler, BASIC, C, C++, COBOL, Forth, Fortran, ML, Pascal, PL/I

or whatever language you prefer.  What is important is for the student to
understand that the first language she learns is not the only language. 
There is no best language.  One hundred years from now, none of the choices
in the above list, as currently constituted, although, as Dijkstra observed,
one of them will still be called Fortran.  More important than choice of
language for the beginning computer science student is for the professor
to instill an ecumenical view of languages.  Unfortunately, too many
computer science professors are as narrowly-based as those in industry
steeped in their own language bigotry.  

Even our current love-affair with OO technology will eventually be
supplanted by another kind of programming, if we still call it that.

One hundred years?  Yes, our colleagues in the next century will look 
upon our arguments as non-sensical and bestow upon us the same kind of
esteem we reserve for mathematicians in the time of Charlemagne.

Richard Riehle

OOPS!  Sorry, Bertrand, I did not mean to overlook Eiffel.  :-)

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kurt Watzka]

John Porter <jdporter@min.net> writes:

>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>> 
>> Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved
>> even in a freestandinhg environment?

>With the possible exception of environments for embedded development,
>the identifiers defined in the standard or any other library are not
>reserved words. 

Would you mind telling the ISO about this observation of yours, so
that the language definition can be adapted to your views? They erronously
claim the identifiers of functions defined in the library clause as
reserved words for identifiers with external linkage.

>If I don't include string.h, I am free to use the
>id 'memcpy' for my own purposes. 

No, since memcpy is not listed as an identifier with file scope. Only
for identifiers with file scope that do _not_ have external linkage
the reservation is limited to compilation units that include one of
the associated headers.

 Even if I do link with a library which
>defines memcpy, my definition overrides it.

No, the behaviour of such a program is undefined. I see no other possible
interpretation of "If the program declares or defines an identifier with
the same name as an identifier reserved in that context (*) the behaviour
is undefined.

(*) denotes a cross reference that says: Provided that a library function
can be declared without reference to any type defined in a header, it is
also permissible to declare the function, either explicitly or implicitly, 
and use it without including its associated header. 

  I'm not sure how you can
>construe this to mean that 'memcpy' is in any way "reserved".

I'm not sure how you can think that it is not reserved after reading this
thread. The question is whether it is reserved in a freestanding environment,
and the answer from the language definition is "no, it is not", as far as
I understand the language definition. In a hosted environment, it is
reserved through rather explicit verbiage in the language definition,
and the behaviour of programs using reserved identifiers in a context
in which they are reserved, is _explicitly declared undefined.

Kurt

-- 
| Kurt Watzka                             Phone : +49-89-2178-2781
| watzka@stat.uni-muenchen.de

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Guillermo Schwarz]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
> it is a reserved 'external name'. 
It is the first time I see reserved external.
> A strictly conforming program may not define any external
> name that begins with 'mem' followed by any combination of letters,
> digits or underscores. 
Ok. Define void memfoo() { } and see if it compiles.
It does.
> Define memcpy, if you write such a static function, you must not 
> include the <string.h> header in
> the same translation unit, else undefined behavior results.
Wrong. The compiler points out two different implementations.
The executable can't be generated.
> There is no such thing as ``overriding'' in C. Each external name must
> have exactly one definition if it is used anywhere in the program.
That's true. C is not object oriented. C++ is just an Smalltalk
wannabe.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Patricia Shanahan]

Guillermo Schwarz wrote:
> 
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
> > it is a reserved 'external name'.
> It is the first time I see reserved external.
> > A strictly conforming program may not define any external
> > name that begins with 'mem' followed by any combination of letters,
> > digits or underscores.
> Ok. Define void memfoo() { } and see if it compiles.
> It does.

What does this have to do with the question of whether it is a
"strictly conforming program"? Surely that can be resolved only by
reference to the language standard. There is no certainty that the set
of programs accepted by a particular compiler exactly corresponds to
the set of strictly conforming programs.

> > Define memcpy, if you write such a static function, you must not
> > include the <string.h> header in
> > the same translation unit, else undefined behavior results.
> Wrong. The compiler points out two different implementations.
> The executable can't be generated.
> > There is no such thing as ``overriding'' in C. Each external name must
> > have exactly one definition if it is used anywhere in the program.
> That's true. C is not object oriented. C++ is just an Smalltalk
> wannabe.

This thread contains a lot of cross-purposes discussion, because some
participants are apparently using what the standard says as their
definition of C, while others are apparently using K&R or what the
compilers they use currently accept. For terms like "strictly
conforming program" I think the language standard is the only
reasonable basis. For other issues, common practice or K&R may be
appropriate, but please first discuss which basis should be used,
rather than diving straight into specific issues that may give
different answers.

Patricia

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Joshua Waxman]

On Sat, 27 Dec 1997, Guillermo Schwarz wrote:

> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
> > it is a reserved 'external name'. 
> It is the first time I see reserved external.
> > A strictly conforming program may not define any external
> > name that begins with 'mem' followed by any combination of letters,
> > digits or underscores. 
> Ok. Define void memfoo() { } and see if it compiles.
> It does.
> > Define memcpy, if you write such a static function, you must not 
> > include the <string.h> header in
> > the same translation unit, else undefined behavior results.
> Wrong. The compiler points out two different implementations.
> The executable can't be generated.

A few weeks ago, someone learning from Stroustrup's book asked a question
about versions of  strlen and strcat and strcpy that he had written. He
included  string.h, and a buch of people pointed out that he shouldn't
have, and that they were surprisd that the code compiled. I took that code
and put it into Borland C++ 5.02, and it indeed compikled. The executable
was generated. 

Josh Waxman

> > There is no such thing as ``overriding'' in C. Each external name must
> > have exactly one definition if it is used anywhere in the program.
> That's true. C is not object oriented. C++ is just an Smalltalk
> wannabe.
> 
> 

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

G Shwarz replies to Kaz:

<<> A strictly conforming program may not define any external
> name that begins with 'mem' followed by any combination of letters,
> digits or underscores.
Ok. Define void memfoo() { } and see if it compiles.
It does.
>>


It is perhaps one of the most common serious misconceptions about what
language definitions mean to write a reply like this:

A standard specifies what strictly conforming programs do. The fact that
you can observe xyz behavior from a compiler when given a non-conforming
program is perhaps interesting, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the
standard.

I think this inability to understand the fundamental distinction between
the set of things that a standard defines, and the set of behaviors seen
experimentally from a given implementaqtion, is one of the most common
serious lapses of knowledge among programmers. Note that this understanding
must precede the realization that you cannot write correct programs in a 
given language without knowing the standard for that language well. It always
amazes me how badly many C programmers are acquainted with the standard.
Many C programmers have never even *seen* the standard, let alone studied it
carefully to know exactly what it says.

People often argue over the relative merits of languages from a portability
point of view. While it is true that there are some important technical
differences (e.g. dealing with varying size of integer types in C and Ada), 
these technical differences are often swamped in practice by the differences
in level of knowledge of the standard defining document, and very often
"portability" problems are just bugs where clearly non-conforming code has
been written.

OK, so your compiler can compile memfoo without compiling. Wunderbar! But
that does NOT mean that you can actually go ahead and call a routine memfoo
if the standard forbids it. To do so would be incompetent programming.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kurt Watzka]

Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@netup.cl> writes:

>Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
>> it is a reserved 'external name'. 
>It is the first time I see reserved external.

Well, looks as if there still is something to learn about C for you.
The exact wording is "are reserved as identifiers with external
linkage", but "reserved external name" looks close enough to me.

>> A strictly conforming program may not define any external
>> name that begins with 'mem' followed by any combination of letters,
>> digits or underscores. 
>Ok. Define void memfoo() { } and see if it compiles.
>It does.

The behaviour of a program that declares or defines an identifier with
the same name as an identifier reserved in that context is undefined.
Undefined behaviour means: "No diagnostic required, and whatever the
implementor chooses to do is correct behaviour as far as the definition
of the C programming language is concerned".

>> Define memcpy, if you write such a static function, you must not 
>> include the <string.h> header in
>> the same translation unit, else undefined behavior results.
>Wrong. The compiler points out two different implementations.
>The executable can't be generated.

If memcpy is not defined as a function with external linkage, and 
if <string.h> is not included, an implementation that does not
sucessfully translate the program in question is at error. Did 
you actually _try_ it, and if yes, which implementation did
"point out two different implementations"?

--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------
#include <stdio.h>

static void *memcpy(void *to, const void *from, size_t n)
{
   char *cto = to;
   const char *cfrom = from;

   while (n--)
      *cto++ = *cfrom++;
}

struct foo
{
   int fred;
   char wilma[32];
   double barney;
};

int main(void)
{ 
   struct foo bar = { 0 }, baz = { 42, "Hello", 3.14159 };
   memcpy(&bar, &baz, sizeof baz);
   printf("%d, %s, %f\n", bar.fred, bar.wilma, bar.barney);
   return 0;
}
--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------

is a valid C program, because the header associated with the file scope
identifier memcpy() is not included, and because memcpy() is not defined
as a symbol with external linkage.

>> There is no such thing as ``overriding'' in C. Each external name must
>> have exactly one definition if it is used anywhere in the program.
>That's true. C is not object oriented. C++ is just an Smalltalk
>wannabe.

The object model and design ideas behind C++ are completely different
from Smalltalk. You could probably call C++ a Simula wannabe (If you
are prepared to call a Mustang a Modell T wannabe), but calling
it a Smalltalk wannabe indicates that you either don't know Smalltalk
or you don't know C++.

Kurt

-- 
| Kurt Watzka                             Phone : +49-89-2178-2781
| watzka@stat.uni-muenchen.de

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <67ktrg$ibk@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:

>
>Lawrence Kirby wrote in message <882757510snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>...
>>In article <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>>           jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net "James Giles" writes:
>...
>>>Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
>>>lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
>>>stage.
>>
>>The "stage" at the time for the development of DOS was CP/M. Windows was
>>an attempt to counter the Mac. NT is greatly influenced by VMS. Unix
>>has very little relevance here.
>
>On the contrary.  The stage was the choice between, first CP/M
>and then DOS on the one hand, or to buy a mini (or later, a workstation)
>and run UNIX (probably with several terminals and users per UNIX machine
>if you bought the mini).

Unix wasn't even a major player at the time, certainly not for business
systems. It tended to be a secondary OS available for systems supplied
by companies like DEC who pushed their own major OSs such as VMS. Unix
was gaining strength from the exposure it was getting in Universities.

> That was the percieved choice of business users
>circa 1980.  DOS only succeeded because people percieved UNIX as the
>other choice.

Nonsense. Most people who bought DOS weren't even aware that Unix existed.
It came well down on the list of "other choices" for business systems.

> They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for
>the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time.

What is your definition of "relaiblae"?

>Indeed, one of the problems is that most businesses had to hire additional
>personel to support UNIX but not DOS.

If you are talking about more than one system administrator you are talking
about a large system well out of DOS's league, or you are talking about
hardware and networking issues which DOS couldn't even support at all.

...

>And hell, I'm only in this discussion because I got drawn in by someone's
>*defence* of UNIX which said that I should somehow expect systems
>software to be *less* reliable than other kinds of software.  What kind of
>a defense is that?  Certainly any reasonable person disagrees with that
>assessment (including the person who originally said it).

I certainly agree there. In my experience Unicx systems stay up until you
have a reason to take them down.

...

>Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
>me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
>than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect;

Sure, but that wasn't what was being discussed. You were making specific
comparisons netween Unix and DOS and were saying that many of the
(anti-)features in DOS came about as a direct result of Unix. We're saying
that Unix wasn't the influence you seem to believe it was.

>that ideas
>for improved systems ought to be pursued; that among these ideas, what I've
>described *might* have merit.  The only people I can think of who'd actually
>oppose a more reliable and more secure system are those whose jobs are
>to maintain the existing ones.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[John Winters]

In article <883319809snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>,
Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>What is your definition of "relaiblae"?

A South African ant-eating mongoose?

John

-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.

Want to buy Linux CDs cheaply in the UK?  Join the Linux Buyers' Consortium.
See <http://www.polo.demon.co.uk/lbc.html>

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <349D48FD.B61FD210@seasoned-software.com>
           steve@seasoned-software.com "steve" writes:

...

>> >If you are fully serious and correct about your understanding C, it was NOT
>> >because you figured it out by looking at it!
>>
>> I don't see why not. I learnt to read 386 assembly well enough by simply
>> looking at compiler output.
>
>Two observations!:
>
>1. Assembly generally uses MNEMONICS, and most are relatively easy to
>understand(although 32 bit code on older 8086 based systems could drive you
> nuts if
>you don't know about segments).

& and | are just as easy to understand than many of the mnemonics I've come
across and often a lot easier than the representations of some addressing
modes which are certainly not mnemonic.

> Also, literal compares will tell you something
>about what the previous command(s) do.  That isn't as common in hand written
> code
>for those types of commands.

Sorry?

>2. You probably KNEW what the code would end up doing, and generally what it
> would
>do, because it was "compiler output".

Usually I know what a C function is supposed to do before reading the code
from the description of the function, and even its name.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <67l6kk$m7k$1@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>
           watzka@stat.uni-muenchen.de "Kurt Watzka" writes:

>fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) writes:
>
>>In article <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com>
>>           seebs@plethora.net "Peter Seebach" writes:
>
>>>In article <ObfZp4YD9GA.296@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
>>>William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>Not that I've ever noticed.  I frequently use C compilers to target embedded
>>>>systems.
>>>
>>>Then you're using "freestanding environments", which are a separate language.
>>>The library is, indeed, part of the hosted environment form of C.
>
>>Aren't the standard library identifiers with external linkage reserved
>>even in a freestandinhg environment?
>
>How about "In a freestanding environment the name and type of the function
>called at program startup are implementation-defined. There are otherwise
>no reserved external identifiers". I read that as excluding the reservation
>of external identifiers defined in the library clause in a freestanding 
>environment. What am I missing?

Good question. I thought I remembered a discussion in comp.std.c that
mentioned that there was a ruling about this and that the standard functions
are in fact reserved. However as something a little more concrete I see that
that last sentence has been removed from the C9X draft.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[John Porter]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> OK, so your compiler can compile memfoo without compiling. Wunderbar! But
> that does NOT mean that you can actually go ahead and call a routine memfoo
> if the standard forbids it. To do so would be incompetent programming.

So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!

John Porter
jporter@logicon.com

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Patricia Shanahan]

John Porter wrote:
> 
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > OK, so your compiler can compile memfoo without compiling. Wunderbar! But
> > that does NOT mean that you can actually go ahead and call a routine memfoo
> > if the standard forbids it. To do so would be incompetent programming.
> 
> So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
> preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
> I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!
> 
> John Porter
> jporter@logicon.com

I would put it in a more positive light. You are promised that
programs that don't call a function "memfoo" and meet some other
conditions WILL compile with any correct C compiler, not just the
current version of the compiler you are using today.

Patricia

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> jdporter@min.net "John Porter" writes:

>Robert Dewar wrote:
>> OK, so your compiler can compile memfoo without compiling. Wunderbar! But
>> that does NOT mean that you can actually go ahead and call a routine memfoo
>> if the standard forbids it. To do so would be incompetent programming.
>
>So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
>preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...

They may very well define a language but they certainly don't define the
C language.

>I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!

You can't declare/define memfoo as an identifier with external linkage if
you are writing C code. That is because the standard permits compilers to
use it for their own purposes. If you want to use it with your particular
compiler because you "know" it works then nobody is going to stop you.
However any real guarantees you have that it will work are tenuous at best
and all bets are off from a portability perspective. It may be more
obvious when you consider functions like strdup() or strupr(). The
same considerations apply except that some compilers are actually known to
define these functions. Perhaps the nastiest header in this respect is
<ctype.h> which reserves identifiers starting with is and to (followed by
a lowercase letter). So names like issue and token are reserved.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Billy Chambless]

In article <01bd147e$11496760$6a28b4cf@carla.ici.net>, "Alicia Carla Longstreet" <carla@ici.net> writes:
|> John Porter wrote:
  
|> : So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
|> : preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
|> : I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!
 
|> No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it
|> defined by any piece of paper.  A language is defined by usage.  A
|> combination of compilers and the standard.

mmmm.... well, I'd say the standard defines a lot of what the compilers
may and may not do. 

ISO defines ISO C, Borland defines Borland C etc....

|> The ISO Standard defines the core of the language.  Any C compiler *must*
|> support this common core, but it may also support various extensions to
 
|> Similarly the ANSI/ISO Standard is a snapshot of the common core of the C
|> language.  The language itself continues to grow and evolve.  Actually C9X
|> recognizes this but preparing a new 'snapshot' of the language (or at least
|> the core).

I don't think that's exactly right. It seems that some of the proposded
changes aren't really part of existing practice... but I'll shut up and
wait for committee members and people who have beed tracking the draft
to comment on that.

|> The standard is needed to keep the language balance.  To keep it from
|> changing out of control.  It is always an 'after the fact' situation.

No, there's more to the standards process than codifying existing
practice. Somewhere I have an article by Tom Plum where he says that
it was *mumble* months after C89 was ratified before even one compiler
passed the Plum Hall validation suite -- a suite of tests that verified
how well the compiler complied with the standard. I'm sure that somebody
who was closer to the action is  reading this, and can comment.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

John says

<<So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!

John Porter
jporter@logicon.com
>>

Of course the answer is that the language is defined by the standard. What
is surprising is your exclamation mark at the end of a statement that should
be common understanding for any programmer.

Of course the language is not defined by the compiler, or any combination
of tools. This is nothing new, languages have been defined by standards
for a very long time. C came rather late to the standards business, but
even before the ANSI C standard was approved, C was defined by pieces
of paper, including for example the reference manual at the back of K&R.

For anyone to think that a language is usefully defined by a compiler is
to me evidence of poor training. No one should be able to get out of any
CS degree program with this kind of misconception.

However, as I said in my earlier message, I am afraid that this confusion
is a very common one and is responsible for a huge percentage of the problems
in porting code, regardless of the language.

If your only knowledge of the definition of a language comes from what you
find is accepted by your compiler, you can be sure that your code is unlikely
to be anywhere as near portable as it should be.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Guillermo Schwarz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5462 bytes --]



Kurt Watzka wrote:

> Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@netup.cl> writes:
>
> >Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> >> Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
> >> it is a reserved 'external name'.
> >It is the first time I see reserved external.
>
> Well, looks as if there still is something to learn about C for you.
> The exact wording is "are reserved as identifiers with external
> linkage", but "reserved external name" looks close enough to me.
>

It's nice to know C advances so fast I can't keep up to date with its
definition."Reserved as identifiers" is something meaningful to you? Can you
reserve a name as
a non indentifier?
"with external linkage"? Those are too many words just to mean an extrernal
name.
The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't mention

"reserved as identifiers with external linkage", that for me means "don't
touch this,
or trick"... The C guys modify their language each 3 months just when they
realize
something is missing. If you think it is funny, I think it is pretty messy.

In Smalltalk, there is USUALLY no need to change the language, but just the
need
to add new classes and methods to achieve what's needed.

> If memcpy is not defined as a function with external linkage, and
> if <string.h> is not included, an implementation that does not
> sucessfully translate the program in question is at error. Did
> you actually _try_ it, and if yes, which implementation did
> "point out two different implementations"?

You are right! I'm amazed. GNU gcc does implement memcpy directly (what is to
say thatmemcpy is inlined into the resulting exe, independently from how it
is defined
in the program).

I would like to follow the only faith: smallTalk, so that my flesh doesn't
get rotten.

How can somebody have a life, if the ANSI  is changing the language so fast?
They think that by changing minor things they can keep C alive?
(I'm not meaning C is dead, but let Electronic Engineers do the drivers for
their
HW in C, but don't tell the rest of the world C is the right language because
it
is well implemented or something else wrong like that).

Maybe not too much people write their dirvers in Smalltalk because the
drivers
are very simple pieces of code. Drivers have no complex algorithms, they just

need sti(), cli(). That's why drivers are made in C. That's why drivers were
made
in assembly.

> The object model and design ideas behind C++ are completely different
> from Smalltalk.

Objects have behavior and state in both languages.C doesn't have objects, nor
behavior, nor state.
C++ is backward compatible with C.
----------------------------------------
C++ is a Smalltalk wannabe (at least an OOL wannabe).

> You could probably call C++ a Simula wannabe (If you
> are prepared to call a Mustang a Modell T wannabe)

Oops! It seems a C++ defender is here. You think C++ is fast as a mustang?At
least a Model T is not as fast as a Mustang, but C is usually faster than C++
unless
the coder is at least 3 years experience.
Model T is more like Simula, very old, very good for their time. Now they
wouldn't sell.
Mercedes is more like Smalltalk. Well designed. Strong. Fast. Everything in
it is a pleasure.
Fiat 600 is more like C++. Old desing. Poor. Pieces doesn't fit. Nothing in
it is beautiful.
Shopping Cart is more like C. You must do everything by hand. Walking is the
only way to
move it. Put two people in it, and they will be discussing all the time. Be
careful or you can
drop to the floor very easily and get your mouth red with your own blood. Or
what's worse,
your body can become a corpse dump.

> , but calling
> it a Smalltalk wannabe indicates that you either don't know Smalltalk
> or you don't know C++.

I'm sorry to hurt your feelings about C++. But it turns out that C++ is a
very poorlanguage. You can't know how many bits does an int have. Or if long
is actually bigger
than int. You can't ask an structure how many fields does it have. You can't
tell an
structure to write itself into a file. You can't code an algorithm that works
with any
kind of numbers: int, double, big int, etc.
In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.
Ask in runtime how many classes do you have in your image.
Or try to figure out which classes descend from which.
Try to make a single general program.
Try to create a Set of objects in C++.
Try to create a Bag of objects in C++.
Try to create a SortedCollection of objects in C++.
Convert one collection into another. (SortedCollection as Bag or whatever).
Put a Set inside another Set.
Try to create a Dictionary of pairs of objects in C++ using hashing to index
the keys.
Then put a Dictionary and a Set inside a Dictionary with the Dictionary as
the key.
If you can do a single thing of what I wrote here you are a good C++
programmer.
All this can be done in 10 minutes in Smalltalk (if lazy).

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but for the last 3 months I've been
Smalltalking more than
keeping up with the C crap. (C++ being the cream of the crap and Java being
coffe you
drink with cream).

I mean no offense to other languages. Fortran had its time. C had it. C++ had
it. Java is having it.
Smalltalk deserves a little respect as the king of OOL. (Maybe CLOS guys will
not agree with
me), but trying to say that C++ object model is better than Smalltalk object
model is saying
GW BASIC is more structured than Pascal. And claiming you know C++ and
Smalltalk more
than me is something to prove, sir!

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Guillermo  Schwarz --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 312 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Guillermo  Schwarz
n:              Schwarz;Guillermo 
org:            ITS
email;internet: gschwarz@its.cl
title:          Software Engineer
note:           Remove stop.spam to reply by mail.
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34A50CAA.54AA@netup.cl>,
Guillermo Schwarz  <gschwarz@netup.cl> wrote:
>Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
>> it is a reserved 'external name'. 
>It is the first time I see reserved external.

The second time may come when you actually read the standard.

>> A strictly conforming program may not define any external
>> name that begins with 'mem' followed by any combination of letters,
>> digits or underscores. 
>Ok. Define void memfoo() { } and see if it compiles.
>It does.

You clearly have no idea about what distinguishes a language definition
from a language implementation.

Of course the definition of memfoo compiles! But a future version of the C
language may add memfoo to the standard library, at which point your program
might not compile. An existing implementation may also define its own
memfoo, knowing that a strictly conforming C program won't use such
an identifier as an external name.

>> Define memcpy, if you write such a static function, you must not 
>> include the <string.h> header in
>> the same translation unit, else undefined behavior results.
>Wrong. The compiler points out two different implementations.
>The executable can't be generated.

That is a possible consequence of undefined behavior, yes. On many systems,
however, you _can_ in fact write your own version of a standard function
with external linkage. The result is that your program, and all libraries
it is linked to, use the new function. That is another possible
consequence of undefined behavior.

If the standard required the implementation to fail to make an executable,
it would not be undefined behavior.

>> There is no such thing as ``overriding'' in C. Each external name must
>> have exactly one definition if it is used anywhere in the program.
>That's true. C is not object oriented. C++ is just an Smalltalk
>wannabe.

I wasn't talking about overriding methods in an ancestor class, but a physical
overriding of external names at link time! This capability C++ does not have
either; it has the One Definition Rule (ODR).

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34A7B45C.403B@min.net>, John Porter  <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
>Robert Dewar wrote:
>> OK, so your compiler can compile memfoo without compiling. Wunderbar! But
>> that does NOT mean that you can actually go ahead and call a routine memfoo
>> if the standard forbids it. To do so would be incompetent programming.
>
>So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
>preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
>I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!

That piece of paper, as you say, doesn't forbid any such thing! It merely
states that all bets are off if you do that, because the identifier
belongs to a reserved name space. 

What is important is not what the paper forbids, but what it allows!
It allows an actual implementation to forbid you from calling an
external function by a reserved name. What's worse, it allows an
implementation to behave unpredictably.

Go ahead! Break the rules! Ignore the paper! You will look foolish in the end.  

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <685mee$5d4$1@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>,
Kurt Watzka <watzka@stat.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@netup.cl> writes:
>
>>Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
>>> it is a reserved 'external name'. 
>>It is the first time I see reserved external.
>
>Well, looks as if there still is something to learn about C for you.
>The exact wording is "are reserved as identifiers with external
>linkage", but "reserved external name" looks close enough to me.

The first occurence of ``external name'' appears in italics in the standard.
It is formally defined as having the same meaning as ``name with external
linkage''; to say that something is reserved as an external name is
*precisely* the same as saying that it is reserved as an identifier with
external linkage, not merely ``close enough''.

:))

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl>,
Guillermo Schwarz  <gschwarz@its.cl> wrote:
>It's nice to know C advances so fast I can't keep up to date with its
>definition."Reserved as identifiers" is something meaningful to you? Can you
>reserve a name as
>a non indentifier?

No, but you can reserve a name for use as one kind of identifier but not
another. ``Reserved for external linkage'' means that your program cannot
define certain identifiers such that these identifiers have external
linkage. 

It means that you can still use 'memcpy' as the name of a local variable, 
as a typedef name, or as a name with internal linkage or a macro name.
(However, if you use the name in these ways, you may not include the
<string.h> header in the translation unit because such uses may clash
with that header.)

>"with external linkage"? Those are too many words just to mean an extrernal
>name.

The term ``external name'' is a short way of saying ``name with external
linkage''. What's the big deal about that?

>The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't mention
>
>"reserved as identifiers with external linkage", that for me means "don't
>touch this,

Note that what is now the library was not yet a formal part of the language
then.  The standard C library had its beginnings as an actual UNIX library.

Anyway, K&R1 did _not_ bless any program which has multiple definitions
of external names! 

The library is a required component of a hosted implementation of modern,
standard C. Thus it follows that its external names are off-limits
to the programmer who wishes to write strictly conforming C code,
or come as close as possible.

>or trick"... The C guys modify their language each 3 months just when they
>realize
>something is missing. If you think it is funny, I think it is pretty messy.

Nonsense. The standard has been stable for 8 years now, with only very
minor changes in response to genuine defect reports, the addition of
one header file <iso646.h> and support for wide character I/O. Prior
to the standard, the C language was in shambles.

The big changes are coming in C9X, which will be a distinct language from
1989 C.

>In Smalltalk, there is USUALLY no need to change the language, but just the
>need
>to add new classes and methods to achieve what's needed.

Are you talking about an implementation of Smalltalk or the language
Smalltalk? Based on your previous posting, it's obvious that you confuse
the two.

How do you add these new methods and classes to the *language*? That would
require that you join some committee and push for the changes to be
added to the language definition.

If what you mean is that you can add some classes to your Smalltalk
programming environment, then so what? You can also add your own libraries
to a C project, or classes to a C++ project.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

<<Keep on dreaming.  No language, ever, can be defined by a piece of paper.
Unless it is a dead language that is no longer used and therefore no longer
changes.  This concept is simply impossible.
>>


This is complete nonsense. It does not correspond to the real situation
with many standardized languages. Many programmers know the C standard
well, carefully adhere to it, and succeed in writing portable code, and
the same thing can be said of Fortran, COBOL and Ada programmers (
particularly in the latter case, Ada programmers tend to know the standard
well).

The idea that a language wanders around ill-defined, and programmers follow
it may seem familiar to undisciplined hackers, but it does not required
dreamers to correct this totally unacceptable behavior!

<<Only programmers who have no concept of what a language, any language is.
Even if the Standard does define the language, it only did so on the day
the standard was finalized.  Languages, even programming language, evolve
and change over time.  A Standards document can never be a current
definition of a language, only the definition of the language at some point
in the past.  Even so, the ANSI/ISO Standards defining C only define the
common core of the C language.  When C9X is finalized, at that moment it
will define the core of the C programming language.  By the time it is
actually published and distributed the language will have changed to a
small extent.
>>

Sounds like you have very little direct experience with language
standardization efforts, your account above bares no relation to reality.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl> gschwarz@its.cl "Guillermo Schwarz" writes:

>Kurt Watzka wrote:
>
>> Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@netup.cl> writes:
>>
>> >Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> >> Although 'memcpy' is not a reserved keyword by any means,
>> >> it is a reserved 'external name'.
>> >It is the first time I see reserved external.
>>
>> Well, looks as if there still is something to learn about C for you.
>> The exact wording is "are reserved as identifiers with external
>> linkage", but "reserved external name" looks close enough to me.
>>
>
>It's nice to know C advances so fast I can't keep up to date with its
>definition."Reserved as identifiers" is something meaningful to you?

No, it doesn't out of context. Actually the wording above doesn't appear to
be exact. The full sentence is (in 7.1.3)

"- All identifiers with external linkage in any of the following subclauses
   (including the future library directions) are always reserved for use
   as identifiers with external linkage"

That means that if any of the following subclauses define an identifier
(or name if you like) as having external linkage then you can't declare
that identifier/name yourself with external linkage. If you do you get
undefined behaviour which means anything can happen. It could be that the
code compiles and does what you expected it to, that the code fails to
compile, that the code compiles and does something completely different
possibly even crashing during execution.

This is reiterated to an extent in subclause 7.13 (Future library durections):

"All external names described below are reserved no matter what headers
 are included by the program"

One of the sections "below" is:

"7.13.8 String handling <string.h>

 Function names that begin with str, mem, or wcs and a lowercase letter
 (followed by any combination of digits, letters, and inderscore) may be
 added to the declarations in the <string.h> header."

>Can you reserve a name as a non indentifier?

No, but that's not what it said. You're trying to take this out of context.

>"with external linkage"? Those are too many words just to mean an extrernal
>name.
>The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't mention
>
>"reserved as identifiers with external linkage", that for me means "don't
>touch this,
>or trick"...

K&R2 doesn't define the language. It is an excellent book but there do seem to
be a few things it doesn't cover properly. The index lists "reserved words"
but that just seems to refer to keywords. Even though it was revised after
the standard was released it seems to be based mainly on a draft standard.

>The C guys modify their language each 3 months just when they
>realize
>something is missing. If you think it is funny, I think it is pretty messy.

I don't know where you got that idea. The text I quoted was directly from
the 1990 ISO standard. The text in the original 1989 ANSI standard is
almost certainly the same - the only major thing that changed between the
two was the section numbering. There have been 2 or maybe 3 changes to the
standard since then but the scope of them is minor, mostly fixing errors
and areas of confusion in the original.

>In Smalltalk, there is USUALLY no need to change the language, but just the
>need
>to add new classes and methods to achieve what's needed.

If you take K&R1 as a revision the C language seems to get revised in a
significant way roughly every 10 years. That's not dissimilar to other
languages (e.g. Ada-83,95 and Fortran 66,77,90)

>> If memcpy is not defined as a function with external linkage, and
>> if <string.h> is not included, an implementation that does not
>> sucessfully translate the program in question is at error. Did
>> you actually _try_ it, and if yes, which implementation did
>> "point out two different implementations"?
>
>You are right! I'm amazed. GNU gcc does implement memcpy directly (what is to
>say thatmemcpy is inlined into the resulting exe, independently from how it
>is defined
>in the program).

It is an optimisation choice the compiler is free to make for itself. This
is possible because the language allows it to do anything it likes if you
break the rules such as try to define your own memcpy() with external
linkage. The compiler is allowed to "know" how standard library functions
behave.

>I would like to follow the only faith: smallTalk, so that my flesh doesn't
>get rotten.
>
>How can somebody have a life, if the ANSI  is changing the language so fast?

It isn't. (As an aside ISO has controlled the C standard since 1990).

>They think that by changing minor things they can keep C alive?
>(I'm not meaning C is dead, but let Electronic Engineers do the drivers for
>their
>HW in C, but don't tell the rest of the world C is the right language because
>it
>is well implemented or something else wrong like that).

No, the one thing that standardisation did was to effectively halt the
development of the C language. This is a good thing for the reasons you
imply. However C does still need to be allowed to develop occasionally.
The 1989 language is showing its age in some areas e.g. lack of guaranteed
support for 64 bit (or larger) integers. Being a lower level language
than many it does have greater pressure on it to adapt to changing
hardare capabilities. Still, the change rate is hardly excessive.

>Maybe not too much people write their dirvers in Smalltalk because the
>drivers
>are very simple pieces of code. Drivers have no complex algorithms, they just
>
>need sti(), cli(). That's why drivers are made in C. That's why drivers were
>made
>in assembly.
>
>> The object model and design ideas behind C++ are completely different
>> from Smalltalk.
>
>Objects have behavior and state in both languages.C doesn't have objects, nor
>behavior, nor state.

C has objects but it doesn't have all the OO paraphernalia that goes with
them in a language like C++ (you could say it lacks the behaviour part).
The purpose of an object in C is to store state. Maybe the OOP'ers have a
more abstract view of what an object is.

>C++ is backward compatible with C.

It might be fair to say that C++ is mostly backwards compatible with C.
However there is enough incompatibility to make it a bad idea to try to
compile natural C code with a C++ compiler.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Patricia Shanahan]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> 
> In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl> gschwarz@its.cl "Guillermo Schwarz" writes:
...
> >The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't mention
> >
> >"reserved as identifiers with external linkage", that for me means "don't
> >touch this,
> >or trick"...
> 
> K&R2 doesn't define the language. It is an excellent book but there do seem to
> be a few things it doesn't cover properly. The index lists "reserved words"
> but that just seems to refer to keywords. Even though it was revised after
> the standard was released it seems to be based mainly on a draft standard.
...

"good and old K&R" may be K&R1, not K&R2.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Billy Chambless]

In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl>, Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@its.cl> writes:

|> Kurt Watzka wrote:

|> > Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@netup.cl> writes:
>
|> > Well, looks as if there still is something to learn about C for you.
|> > The exact wording is "are reserved as identifiers with external
|> > linkage", but "reserved external name" looks close enough to me.

|> It's nice to know C advances so fast I can't keep up to date with its
|> definition.

Yeah, it's pretty tough, trying to look at the new version of the
standard every decade or so.


|> "Reserved as identifiers" is something meaningful to you? Can you
|> reserve a name as a non indentifier? "with external linkage"? 

The exact quote ( from ISO 9899-1990) is:

  -- All identifiers with external linkage in any of the following
  subclauses (including the future library directions) are always
  reserved for use as idenitiers with external linkage.

You have to read the sentence all the way through in order to
understand. "Reserved as identifiers" might be a bit silly, but
"reserved as identifiers with external linkage" makes some sense, no?

|> The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't
|> mention "reserved as identifiers with external linkage",

Why don't you take a bold step forward into the 1980's and take a look
at ANSI/ISO C? ;)

|> or trick"... The C guys modify their language each 3 months just when they
|> realize
|> something is missing. If you think it is funny, I think it is pretty messy.

They do? Which C guys is that? The bit about external identifiers is a
quote from C89. We have great hopes that C9X will be ratified before we
call have to call it C01 or something.

There have been a couple addenda to the C standard, but no big changes
in 7 years.

|> In Smalltalk, there is USUALLY no need to change the language, but just the
|> need to add new classes and methods to achieve what's needed.

[ assorted language advocacy snipped. You've heard it all before... ]

|> I'm sorry to hurt your feelings about C++. But it turns out that C++ is a
|> very poorlanguage. 

Yeah, it sucks. That's why so many people get paid so much money tp
program in it when they'd really rather be using Smalltalk. Or Lisp.

|> You can't know how many bits does an int have. Or if long
|> is actually bigger than int.

You can't? Wow...I though you could.

|> You can't tell an structure to write itself into a file. 

You can't? I thought I had....

|> You can't code an algorithm that works with any
|> kind of numbers: int, double, big int, etc.

You can't? Has anybody told Alexander Stepanov about this?

|> Try to make a single general program.

Huh? A single general program? Help me out here...what does that mean?

|> Try to create a Set of objects in C++.
|> Try to create a Bag of objects in C++.
|> Try to create a SortedCollection of objects in C++.

Hmmmm.... I get it. Your knowledge of C++ is as current as your
knowledge of C.

|> I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but for the last 3 months I've been
|> Smalltalking more than keeping up with the C crap. 

Obviously.

|> (C++ being the cream of the crap and Java being coffe you
|> drink with cream).

I do like that, though: "C++ : The cream of the Crap!".
 
|> I mean no offense to other languages. Fortran had its time. C had it. C++ had
|> it. Java is having it.

And Smalltalk...?

|> And claiming you know C++ and Smalltalk more
|> than me is something to prove, sir!

...and the band played on.

[ spewage apparantly generated by Web browser being overloaded as
newsreader deleted ]

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Billy Chambless]

In article <dewar.883445953@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
|> <<Keep on dreaming.  No language, ever, can be defined by a piece of paper.
|> Unless it is a dead language that is no longer used and therefore no longer
|> changes.  This concept is simply impossible.
|> >>


|> This is complete nonsense. It does not correspond to the real situation
|> with many standardized languages. Many programmers know the C standard
|> well, carefully adhere to it, and succeed in writing portable code, and
|> the same thing can be said of Fortran, COBOL and Ada programmers (
|> particularly in the latter case, Ada programmers tend to know the standard
|> well).

And the converse is true, as well. Many "programmers" who consider the
compiler to define the laguage generate code that runs fine, but creates
major migraines when it has to be ported, or even compiled with a
different compiler. On Unix, for instance, the standard Sun C compiler
will accept crap that the SGI compiler will choke on.


|> The idea that a language wanders around ill-defined, and programmers follow
|> it may seem familiar to undisciplined hackers, but it does not required
|> dreamers to correct this totally unacceptable behavior!

Yep. It's not really all that hard to base one's programing style on the
formal definition of the language,  making use of extensions as needed.
It's more an attitude than anything.

|> Sounds like you have very little direct experience with language
|> standardization efforts, your account above bares no relation to reality.

Indeed.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Jeffrey Templon]

"Alicia Carla Longstreet" <carla@ici.net> writes:

> No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it
> defined by any piece of paper.  A language is defined by usage.  A
> combination of compilers and the standard.

I'd guess this opinion is generated by doing the majority of one's
work on the same platform, possibly even using the same development
tools, whenever you use C.

We have had *no end* of headaches on our big code, because the original
lead programmer agreed with your definition of the language (in this
case, Fortran).  He declared that one extension he made extensive
use of (no pun intended, but I like it) was *standard* because every
compiler he ever used supported it.  The year after the first major
release, CEBAF made a big investment in IBM RS/6000 machines, and lo
and behold this wonderful extension was *not* supported in IBM's
compiler suite!  Also lots of people started getting Linux boxes
at about the same time, and it has only been in the last year that
Linux compilers are available which support this extension (although
there were a number of Fortran compilers available which did not
support the extension.)  So our project does not have access to a
significant fraction of the on-site horsepower, and we're looking at
a six-month project to convert this extension usage to conform to the
F90 standard.

Good luck with any porting projects you may have in the future.

					JAT

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Patricia Shanahan]

Jeffrey Templon wrote:
> 
> "Alicia Carla Longstreet" <carla@ici.net> writes:
> 
> > No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it
> > defined by any piece of paper.  A language is defined by usage.  A
> > combination of compilers and the standard.
> 
> I'd guess this opinion is generated by doing the majority of one's
> work on the same platform, possibly even using the same development
> tools, whenever you use C.
...

I sometimes think that every programmer should be required to port a
large program to its second platform before doing any new code.
Preferably, the first platform should differ in word size, endianness,
and general software heritage (e.g. UNIX vs. MSWindows vs. VMS) from
the new target. There is nothing quite like this experience for an
enhanced appreciation the value of standards.

Patricia

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Charles R Martin]

Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey Templon wrote:
> >
> > "Alicia Carla Longstreet" <carla@ici.net> writes:
> >
> > > No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it
> > > defined by any piece of paper.  A language is defined by usage.  A
> > > combination of compilers and the standard.
> >
> > I'd guess this opinion is generated by doing the majority of one's
> > work on the same platform, possibly even using the same development
> > tools, whenever you use C.
> ...
> 
> I sometimes think that every programmer should be required to port a
> large program to its second platform before doing any new code.
> Preferably, the first platform should differ in word size, endianness,
> and general software heritage (e.g. UNIX vs. MSWindows vs. VMS) from
> the new target. There is nothing quite like this experience for an
> enhanced appreciation the value of standards.

Years ago, I helped teach an undergrad software engineering
this-is-what-it's-
like-in-the-real-world-kiddies course at Duke.  We included an
assignment in which the students had to perform maintenance on an
existing PL/I program in order to add new functionality.  (It was a
reasonably well-structured program on which I had [hee hee] removed
almost all comments and somewhat obfuscated the variable names -- a lot
like trying to maintain a lot of C code.)  years later, students I run
in to STILL tell me that it was the only class they had that prepared
them for real life.  (They're wrong -- the data structures class and
other such just aren't as obvious in their effects, but that's another
posting.)

Eventually, the faculty member who owned the course didn't get tenure,
and the course was taken over by a guy who felt that "software
engineering" was best taught by writing the fastest program to find
discontinuities in the REAL type.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Joshua Waxman]

On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Guillermo Schwarz wrote:

> very poorlanguage. You can't know how many bits does an int have. Or if long
> is actually bigger
> than int.
You can't? How about sizeof(int) and if(sizeof(int) < sizeof(long))

> You can't ask an structure how many fields does it have. 

True. But structures in C++ tend to have a constant number of fields, no?

> You can't tell an
> structure to write itself into a file.

Yes you can. You just have to include in the definition of the struction a
function the does output. Most overload the << with the ostream operator.

> You can't code an algorithm that works
> with any
> kind of numbers: int, double, big int, etc.

Ever hear of template functions?

> In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.

Check after each addition to see if you reversed signs, and act
accordingly.

> Ask in runtime how many classes do you have in your image.

I'm interested what this means. What is an image that contains classes?

> Or try to figure out which classes descend from which.

I think it is possible to do this. RTTI. Also, can't you do a dynamic_cast
and check if the pointer is null, if not then the class descends?

> Try to make a single general program.

What does this mean?

> Try to create a Set of objects in C++.

#include <set>
using namespace std;
set <int> h; set <set<char> > k;

> Try to create a Bag of objects in C++.

ditto, just replace with multiset.

> Try to create a SortedCollection of objects in C++.

extend it from one of the base containers.

> Convert one collection into another. (SortedCollection as Bag or whatever).

The generic copy algorithm.

> Put a Set inside another Set.

set <set <char > > k;
or do you mean copy the contents? There is a copy.

> Try to create a Dictionary of pairs of objects in C++ using hashing to index
> the keys.

Your speaking about the map type. Maps aren't actually implemented using
hashes, I don't think, but in Stroustrup's book he shows how to quickly do
this.

> Then put a Dictionary and a Set inside a Dictionary with the Dictionary as
> the key.

Can do.

> If you can do a single thing of what I wrote here you are a good C++
> programmer.

Or a programmer who knows the Standard Template Library.

> All this can be done in 10 minutes in Smalltalk (if lazy).
> 
By all, do you mean that in 10 minutes you would have completed EVERY
item, of that each item in turn could be completed in 10 minutes?
In C++, most of the stuff you listed could be done in less than a minute
each. The hash is a bit more complicated, and might take 1/2 an hour. For
a more experienced programmer, possibly shorter.

> I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but for the last 3 months I've been
> Smalltalking more than
> keeping up with the C crap.

C++, you mean. And apperently you haven't. :)

 (C++ being the cream of the crap and Java being coffe you  drink with
cream).
> 
> I mean no offense to other languages. Fortran had its time. C had it. C++ had
> it. Java is having it.
> Smalltalk deserves a little respect as the king of OOL. (Maybe CLOS guys will
> not agree with
> me), but trying to say that C++ object model is better than Smalltalk object
> model is saying
> GW BASIC is more structured than Pascal. And claiming you know C++ and
> Smalltalk more
> than me is something to prove, sir!
> 
I don't know Smalltalk at all. C++ did I prove?

Josh Waxman

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[paulr]

Well actually, most of the "advanced" features in DOS *were* copied 
almost directly from UNIX, which Microsoft happened to have a stake in 
at the time. (i.e. Xenix) 

A *lot* of things we take from granted come from UNIX, and UNIX servers
are very hot- the only things that easily overmatch them are mainframes,
and even there they are giving ground. :) 

-Paul


: >Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
: >me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
: >than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect;

: Sure, but that wasn't what was being discussed. You were making specific
: comparisons netween Unix and DOS and were saying that many of the
: (anti-)features in DOS came about as a direct result of Unix. We're saying
: that Unix wasn't the influence you seem to believe it was.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl>,
Guillermo Schwarz  <gschwarz@its.cl> wrote:
>I'm sorry to hurt your feelings about C++. But it turns out that C++ is a
>very poorlanguage. You can't know how many bits does an int have. Or if long
>is actually bigger
>than int. You can't ask an structure how many fields does it have. You can't

Why would this be useful?

>tell an
>structure to write itself into a file. You can't code an algorithm that works

Why not? Have you never heard of object store databases? 

>with any
>kind of numbers: int, double, big int, etc.

Nonsense. You obviously haven't heard of C++ features such as templates,
and operator and function overloading.

>In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.

An overflow is a serious programming error. The way you handle it is by not
making the error in the first place.  In C and C++, integer overflow invokes
undefined behavior---an implementation isn't required to handle overflow, but
may. 

You can detect overflows with assertions. I could lecture you how, but
it would probably be a waste of time. You first need to learn the basics,
like what a language standard is and how it differs from a compiler
manual.

>Ask in runtime how many classes do you have in your image.

I can't imagine what possible benefit it could have, but I will concede
that ``it's neat''.

>Or try to figure out which classes descend from which.

If you don't know which classes descend from which, you probably have a
mess of a design.

C++ is a _statically_ typed language; this gives it a performance advantage
and added safety (though the type safety of C++ does arguably leave
something to be desired.) Who writes high-performance applications in
Smalltalk?

>Try to make a single general program.

What's that? I'm conjuring images of something that plays chess and routes
IP packets at the same time.

>Try to create a Set of objects in C++.
>Try to create a Bag of objects in C++.
>Try to create a SortedCollection of objects in C++.

I'm not thorougly versed with the standard template library, but I believe
that it has enough clout for this sort of thing. If not, you can implement
your own classes. 

>Convert one collection into another. (SortedCollection as Bag or whatever).
>Put a Set inside another Set.
>Try to create a Dictionary of pairs of objects in C++ using hashing to index
>the keys.
>Then put a Dictionary and a Set inside a Dictionary with the Dictionary as
>the key.
>If you can do a single thing of what I wrote here you are a good C++
>programmer.

I've created dictionaries having arbitrary element and key types (including
self referential types) in the *C* programming language. 

In fact, I did them in my very first C programming project as an undergraduate
freshman, in which I had to implement an interpreter for a small PostScript
like language. In that language, it was possible to create dictionaries
that contain keyword and value pairs, where the values can be of dictionary
type.
 
>All this can be done in 10 minutes in Smalltalk (if lazy).

Yeah, and that's about how long it will take the executable to process
ten dictionary items.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <Pine.A41.3.95.971230143114.19568A-100000@acis.mc.yu.edu>,
Joshua Waxman  <jwaxman@ymail.yu.edu> wrote:
>> In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.
>
>Check after each addition to see if you reversed signs, and act
>accordingly.

That is absurd. Overflow invokes undefined behavior in C++. To check
for sign reversal, you would have to depend on a particular platform's
handling of overflow. On two's complement systems, overflow on addition or
subtraction can be detected by examining the most significant bit of the
result and those of the operands. This isn't true in general, however.

It's possible to determine whether a given operation will occur by
writing a test expression (or assertion) which itself does not invoke
overflow.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

<<> In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.

Check after each addition to see if you reversed signs, and act
accordingly.
>>

Surely that is wrong, where in the C++ standard can you find a guarantee
on results obtained following signed numeric overflow?

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <dewar.883523608@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
><<> In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.
>
>Check after each addition to see if you reversed signs, and act
>accordingly.
>>>
>
>Surely that is wrong, where in the C++ standard can you find a guarantee
>on results obtained following signed numeric overflow?

http://www.borland.com

Failing that, you can search the help materials in Developer Studio 97.

<g> :)

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Joshua Waxman]

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, firewind wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Joshua Waxman wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Guillermo Schwarz wrote:
> > > very poorlanguage. You can't know how many bits does an int have. Or if long
> > > is actually bigger
> > > than int.
> 
> > You can't? How about sizeof(int) and if(sizeof(int) < sizeof(long))
> 
> sizeof(int) gives the size in bytes, which you need to multiply by
> CHAR_BIT to get the number of bits.
> 
> > > You can't ask an structure how many fields does it have. 
> > 
> > True. But structures in C++ tend to have a constant number of fields, no?
> 
> And I'm curious as to the usefulness of this, anyway. How can you use a
> structure that you don't know the layout of?

Well, if you had a Stack structure, which has a variable number of fields,
you can still know the basic layout of it and thus use it, but it would be
useful to know how many stack elements there are. C++, of course,
might do this with a structure containing a linked list of constant sized
elements, and in this case the size is known or can easily be determined.

> 
> > > In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.
> > 
> > Check after each addition to see if you reversed signs, and act
> > accordingly.
> 
> What about unsigned arirthmetic? What if sign reversal is possible (but
> not garunteed) in this expression, without any overflow?
> 

He said integers, and int without any modifier is signed. I was talking in
terms of addition, and when you add or multiply by positive numbers, I
would expect the only way to change sign is with overflow. If a newgative
number you are adding, sign change is possible, but then we wouldn't worry
about overflow. Anyway, probably the best way to handle this is to make
classes Integer, and UnsignedInteger, overload operators, and let the
internals worry about checking for overflow conditions.
By the way, it is spelled *guaranteed*.


Josh Waxman

> [-                               firewind                                   -]
> [-   email: firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org (home), firewind@aurdev.com (work)  -]
> [-          "You're just jealous because the voices talk to -me-."          -]
> [-                   Have a good day, and enjoy your C.                     -]
> [-          (on a crusade of grumpiness where grumpiness is due)            -]
> 
> 
> 

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Joshua Waxman]

On 30 Dec 1997, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> In article <Pine.A41.3.95.971230143114.19568A-100000@acis.mc.yu.edu>,
> Joshua Waxman  <jwaxman@ymail.yu.edu> wrote:
> >> In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.
> >
> >Check after each addition to see if you reversed signs, and act
> >accordingly.
> 
> That is absurd. Overflow invokes undefined behavior in C++. To check
> for sign reversal, you would have to depend on a particular platform's
> handling of overflow. On two's complement systems, overflow on addition or
> subtraction can be detected by examining the most significant bit of the
> result and those of the operands. This isn't true in general, however.
> 
> It's possible to determine whether a given operation will occur by
> writing a test expression (or assertion) which itself does not invoke
> overflow.

Oops! Thanks for pointing that out.

By the way, does your later post indicate that Borland guarantees
that overflow will wrap around?

Also, clue me in on "undefined behavior." From the rest of your postr, I
would call this "implementation dependant behavior."  What are the various
degrees and meanings of evil things in C++?

Josh Waxman

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

Kaz says

<<That is absurd. Overflow invokes undefined behavior in C++. To check
for sign reversal, you would have to depend on a particular platform's
handling of overflow. On two's complement systems, overflow on addition or
subtraction can be detected by examining the most significant bit of the
result and those of the operands. This isn't true in general, however.

It's possible to determine whether a given operation will occur by
writing a test expression (or assertion) which itself does not invoke
overflow.
>>


Yes, it is possible, but gruesome, especially for multiplication. And rather
silly, since at the hardware level it is typically easy to detect overflow.
The lack of overflow detection in a language like C++ seems a clear and
annoying ommission (actually I had been told this was fixed in the latest
standard, but I guess that was false information). Anyway, the Ada approach
makes far more sense than appealing to highly dubious assertions!

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Dann Corbit]

arnie sherman wrote in message <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com>...
>to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:
>
>i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
>would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
>rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
>shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ?
Depends on what you want to do.

>i am guessing c & c++,
>even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined
>programming environment.
Once you have learned smalltalk, C++ will be fairly easy to learn (though
templates will be something of a departure).  Once you know C++, C will be
easy to learn.  Why not learn them all?  It's really not all that difficult to
pick up a new programming language.  Each language has strengths and
weaknesses.  The more you know, the better you will be as a programmer.
Besides that, each teaches some new concepts that you can carry over to your
design skills.

>additionally, i am primarilly interested in
>graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc.
Sounds like C, C++, and Assembly to me, but I suspect that some of that goes
on in most programming disciplines.

>whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
>to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
>reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
>future.

Why not learn Java too?  Go pick up a book from your local library.  In one
day or so, you will know if you want to pursue it.

Look through your local Sunday paper.  Find out what kind of work the
programmers in those disciples do in your area.  If it sounds like something
you would enjoy, focus on that target.
--
C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9.
Want Software?  Algorithms?  Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Dann Corbit]

Robert Dewar wrote in message ...
>Kaz says
>
><<That is absurd. Overflow invokes undefined behavior in C++. To check
>for sign reversal, you would have to depend on a particular platform's
>handling of overflow. On two's complement systems, overflow on addition or
>subtraction can be detected by examining the most significant bit of the
>result and those of the operands. This isn't true in general, however.
>
>It's possible to determine whether a given operation will occur by
>writing a test expression (or assertion) which itself does not invoke
>overflow.
>>>
>
>
>Yes, it is possible, but gruesome, especially for multiplication. And rather
>silly, since at the hardware level it is typically easy to detect overflow.
>The lack of overflow detection in a language like C++ seems a clear and
>annoying ommission (actually I had been told this was fixed in the latest
>standard, but I guess that was false information). Anyway, the Ada approach
>makes far more sense than appealing to highly dubious assertions!
Now, with Ada we can simply declare precision, and I will agree this is very
nice.  But we can make the same sort of decisions for other languages and use
efficient fixed sizes or new types of our own design.  Instead of growing a
bit at a time, we grow in jumps.  Now, if I declare a type of 60 bits of
precision, am I guaranteed that it will never overflow?  Obviously, I still
have to perform the same analysis that I would need for any other software
system.  Getting exactly what you want is much easier, though.


Exception handling is not perfect a solution either.  It is even better to
engineer a solution where the types used never extend beyond the design range.
If there is any possibility that a counter of type short is not large enough,
use long.  And if there is any chance that long is too small, use a larger
type or invent one.  Same for float, double, long double.

Exception handling for memory or disk problems makes excellent sense, since
those are often limited resources of unknown quantity.  But integer overflow
and the like is an indication of a serious flaw in the original physical
design.

If an exhaustive test of the domain is applied, using assert() is as good as
any other method, and it has the added benefit of documenting the thinking of
the software analyst very concisely.  However, with more than 5 bytes of data
length in the domain, exhaustive testing is prohibitive.
--
C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9.
Want Software?  Algorithms?  Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Chris Gray]

In article <349D4E8A.1FECCCA1@seasoned-software.com> steve <steve@seasoned-software.com>
 writes:

> WRONG!  The average business couldn't consider UNIX!  WHY?  Because it was
> harder to use, had fewer reasonably priced(and easy to get) programs, and few
> even knew about it!  GIVE ME A BREAK!  ALSO, UNIX was made to run under larger
> systems.  It couldn't run well under the 8086 system until they got MMUs!  The
> FIRST 8086 with an MMU was the 80386!  SURE, some companies tried to make it run
> on the 286, and some even did things earlier, but the were effectively toys!

One of those toys was called Xenix, IIRC.  What was the name of that company again?

-- 

  Chris Gray

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[firewind]

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Joshua Waxman wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Guillermo Schwarz wrote:
> > very poorlanguage. You can't know how many bits does an int have. Or if long
> > is actually bigger
> > than int.

> You can't? How about sizeof(int) and if(sizeof(int) < sizeof(long))

sizeof(int) gives the size in bytes, which you need to multiply by
CHAR_BIT to get the number of bits.

> > You can't ask an structure how many fields does it have. 
> 
> True. But structures in C++ tend to have a constant number of fields, no?

And I'm curious as to the usefulness of this, anyway. How can you use a
structure that you don't know the layout of?

> > In C++ there is no way to handle overflow of integers.
> 
> Check after each addition to see if you reversed signs, and act
> accordingly.

What about unsigned arirthmetic? What if sign reversal is possible (but
not garunteed) in this expression, without any overflow?

[-                               firewind                                   -]
[-   email: firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org (home), firewind@aurdev.com (work)  -]
[-          "You're just jealous because the voices talk to -me-."          -]
[-                   Have a good day, and enjoy your C.                     -]
[-          (on a crusade of grumpiness where grumpiness is due)            -]

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[arnie sherman]

to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:

i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? i am guessing c & c++,
even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined
programming environment. additionally, i am primarilly interested in
graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc. 

whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
future.

any thoughts?
thanks
arnie sherman

arnie@diac.com
http://www.diac.com/~arnie
please replace eatTheSpam w/ "arnie" to reply...

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

<<He said integers, and int without any modifier is signed. I was talking in
terms of addition, and when you add or multiply by positive numbers, I
would expect the only way to change sign is with overflow. If a newgative
number you are adding, sign change is possible, but then we wouldn't worry
about overflow. Anyway, probably the best way to handle this is to make
classes Integer, and UnsignedInteger, overload operators, and let the
internals worry about checking for overflow conditions.
>>

Unfortunately, the point is that there is no reasonable way to program
these internals in an efficient portable manner in C++

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Guillermo Schwarz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1624 bytes --]



Lawrence Kirby wrote:

>  Unix
> was gaining strength from the exposure it was getting in Universities.

Yes.

> Most people who bought DOS weren't even aware that Unix existed.
>

In the early 80's that was true. But in the late 80's UNIX was known toreplace
other OS's. It did. But now there in Windows NT in the horizon,
which for the most part has been behind Novell Netware, and I think
has almost killed it.
What does this have to do with Smalltalk?
Everything!
Smalltalk was created in Xerox PARC as was the graphic workstation,
the mouse and the ethernet. Guess which part is missing in every single
desktop...

> > They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for
> >the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time.
>
> What is your definition of "relaiblae"?

Relaiblae? It must be latin for reliable ;^)Everybody knows it means "performs as
expected".
UNIX didn't stay up more than 3 days until LINUX was born.
I've seen linuxes uptime as long as 1 year.
Long life to Linux.

> >Finally, I don't understand why everyone is in such vehement opposition to
> >me on this.  Even if you *don't* believe that there have been better systems
> >than UNIX in the past, you must admit that UNIX is *NOT* perfect;

I would have to see the original Smalltalk box to see if it was better or not.I
think they must have been a big powerful workstation easily configurable
as a Mac and easily programable as any Smalltalk environment seen today
(probably Squeak).
--
I use CAPS to emphasize, not to yell.
I take unpopular positions.
This signature is copyrighted and used without permission.


[-- Attachment #2: Card for Guillermo  Schwarz --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 312 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Guillermo  Schwarz
n:              Schwarz;Guillermo 
org:            ITS
email;internet: gschwarz@its.cl
title:          Software Engineer
note:           Remove stop.spam to reply by mail.
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[John Slaman]

Which language will make you employable in the shortest amount of time ?

    Microsoft's Visual Basic 5

Why
- easy to learn
- large market
- it's in demand (because systems written in VB need to be rewritten every
couple of years)

Words of caution
- you will never be respected (and rightly so)
- it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the people
doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).

Regards



arnie sherman wrote in message <34a991f0.2379476@news.diac.com>...
>to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:
>
>i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
>would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
>rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
>shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? i am guessing c & c++,
>even though i do find smalltalk to be a cleaner & more refined
>programming environment. additionally, i am primarilly interested in
>graphics, i.e. multimedia, inteerface design, internet apps., etc.
>
>whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
>to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
>reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
>future.
>
>any thoughts?
>thanks
>arnie sherman
>
>arnie@diac.com
>http://www.diac.com/~arnie
>please replace eatTheSpam w/ "arnie" to reply...

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Billy Chambless]

In article <34AA80B3.E651528D@its.cl>, Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@its.cl> writes:

|> What does this have to do with Smalltalk?
|> Everything!
|> Smalltalk was created in Xerox PARC as was the graphic workstation,
|> the mouse and the ethernet. Guess which part is missing in every single
|> desktop...

Hmmm.... sounds like vendors stole the usable ideas, and left the
rest. ;)

|> UNIX didn't stay up more than 3 days until LINUX was born.

Hmmm....maybe you've had bad luck with Unix. This certainly doesn't 
fit with my own experiences with various Unixes, including SunOS,
AIX, SCO, Irix, and errr... whatever TI called their Unix that they put
on their long-forgotten workstations.

|> I've seen linuxes uptime as long as 1 year.

The only time we usually reboot any of our 20 or so Unix machines is for
power outages or hardware upgrades.

|> Long life to Linux.

Can't argue with that! ;)

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[John Porter]

Dann Corbit wrote:
> 
> Now, with Ada we can simply declare precision, and I will agree this is very
> nice.  But we can make the same sort of decisions for other languages and use
> efficient fixed sizes or new types of our own design.  Instead of growing a
> bit at a time, we grow in jumps.  Now, if I declare a type of 60 bits of
> precision, am I guaranteed that it will never overflow?  Obviously, I still
> have to perform the same analysis that I would need for any other software
> system.  Getting exactly what you want is much easier, though.
> 
> Exception handling is not perfect a solution either.  It is even better to
> engineer a solution where the types used never extend beyond the design range.
> If there is any possibility that a counter of type short is not large enough,
> use long.  And if there is any chance that long is too small, use a larger
> type or invent one.  Same for float, double, long double.

Of course in C++ it would be pretty easy to make a class that implements
integers of unlimited (dynamic) size.  Making it efficient would be a
little
harder...

John Porter

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Jon S Anthony]

John Porter <jdporter@min.net> writes:

> Of course in C++ it would be pretty easy to make a class that implements
> integers of unlimited (dynamic) size.  Making it efficient would be a
> little
> harder...

There is nothing special about C++ in this respect.  You can do this
in anything (in particular the Ada take would in all likelihood look
very close to the C++ take).  Now, OTOH (as someone else already
mentioned), you already get this for free in Common Lisp.  Of course
making it efficient is rather more than "a little harder"...

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

David says

<<My preferred solution is the Common Lisp one.  It will handle integers
of any size, subject of course to machine limitation.  I can write a
program that will handle integers accurately, without overflow.  The
downside is the performance hit, but there are ways around that.
>>

Sure, but you should be able to program this easily in any language.
Unfortunately, in practice it is often difficult to program efficient
multiple precision arithmetic because none of the common languages
provide the necessary primitives, e.g.


   Add A+B generating sum, carry
   Add A+B+carry, generating sum, carry

In addition you need

   Multiply single length giving double length

   Divide single into double giving single quotient and single remainder

COBOL has the last two, but other languages do not. Your compiler may
recognize some idiom such as

   x = (long)a + (long)b;
 
or

   X := Long_Integer (A) + Long_Integer (B);

(C or Ada)

and generate reasonable code, but it may well not, and you may end up with
a horror, particularly if the addition is replaced by multiplication in
the above assignments.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Brock]

firewind wrote in message ...
<<snipp
>And I'm curious as to the usefulness of this, anyway. How can you use a
>structure that you don't know the layout of?
<<

I would think that an OO programmer in particular would not want to know
anything about the implementation(layout) of the object, just the interface.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Joshua Waxman]

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Brock wrote:
> 
> firewind wrote in message ...
> <<snipp
> >And I'm curious as to the usefulness of this, anyway. How can you use a
> >structure that you don't know the layout of?
> <<
> 
> I would think that an OO programmer in particular would not want to know
> anything about the implementation(layout) of the object, just the interface.
> 
But we are talking here of knowing an implementation detail, namely, how
many fields in the (otherwise unknown) structure. I assume firewind's
question was, assuming you do know the number of fields, but you have no
other clue of what thsoe fields mean, how would you use that data to your
advantage. His words "using the structure" I read as "using the number of
fields for modifying the object."

Josh Waxman

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Dann Corbit]

Brock wrote in message <68edmi$g46$1@news2.ispnews.com>...
>
>firewind wrote in message ...
><<snipp
>>And I'm curious as to the usefulness of this, anyway. How can you use a
>>structure that you don't know the layout of?
><<
>
>I would think that an OO programmer in particular would not want to know
>anything about the implementation(layout) of the object, just the interface.

Except, of course, when he/she is designing the class.  Before the complexity
gets abstracted, someone has to deal with it.
--
C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9.
Want Software?  Algorithms?  Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[David Thornley]

In article <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net>,
Alicia Carla Longstreet <carla@ici.net> wrote:
>Robert Dewar wrote:
>: John says
> 
>: <<So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
>: preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
>: I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!
>
>: Of course the answer is that the language is defined by the standard.
>What
>: is surprising is your exclamation mark at the end of a statement that
>should
>: be common understanding for any programmer.
>
>Only programmers who have no concept of what a language, any language is. 
>Even if the Standard does define the language, it only did so on the day
>the standard was finalized.  Languages, even programming language, evolve
>
I look at it this way.  I use Metrowerks Codewarrior a lot, and read
their newsgroup, and I've noticed that there are two basic responses to
complaints that "the compiler does X":

1.  Sorry, but the compiler is conforming to the standard.  You'll
have to change your code.
2.  Sorry, you're right, the compiler isn't conforming to the standard.
We'll have that changed next version/next month with a patch.  In the
meantime, here's a workaround.

Codewarrior, as shipped from the factory, is not a standard C compiler,
but it can be made to be one (modulo bugs) with a few option selections.
If I write standard C, I can use it with Codewarrior, or I can move it
to a Unix box and use gcc, or I can....

Think of the standard as what you can count on in the language.  The
actual language a given compiler will accept is different, of course,
and the range of C "dialects" increases with every release with a
new feature or pragma or whatever.  If you are writing a particular
program for use with one version of one compiler on one system
(and I haven't done that in a *long* time), you can go wild with
the extensions.  If you might want to reuse some of your code
sometime, be careful with them.



--
David H. Thornley                        | These opinions are mine.  I
david@thornley.net                       | do give them freely to those
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | who run too slowly.       O-

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[David Thornley]

In article <68c66j$ei3$1@client3.news.psi.net>,
Dann Corbit <dcorbit@solutionsiq.com> wrote:
>Robert Dewar wrote in message ...
>>Kaz says
>>
>><<That is absurd. Overflow invokes undefined behavior in C++. To check
>>for sign reversal, you would have to depend on a particular platform's
>>handling of overflow. On two's complement systems, overflow on addition or
>>subtraction can be detected by examining the most significant bit of the
>>result and those of the operands. This isn't true in general, however.
>>
>>It's possible to determine whether a given operation will occur by
>>writing a test expression (or assertion) which itself does not invoke
>>overflow.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, it is possible, but gruesome, especially for multiplication. And rather
>>silly, since at the hardware level it is typically easy to detect overflow.
>
My preferred solution is the Common Lisp one.  It will handle integers
of any size, subject of course to machine limitation.  I can write a
program that will handle integers accurately, without overflow.  The
downside is the performance hit, but there are ways around that.
First, I can introduce spot checks to see if my integers are staying
in the "fixnum" range rather than the "bignum" range; second, I can
use declarations to tell the compiler to optimize performance at the
expense of safety.  It fits in well with my attitude of getting it
working without worrying about low-level optimization.


--
David H. Thornley                        | These opinions are mine.  I
david@thornley.net                       | do give them freely to those
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | who run too slowly.       O-

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Keith G. Murphy]

David Thornley wrote:
[snip good stuff]
> 
> Think of the standard as what you can count on in the language.  The
> actual language a given compiler will accept is different, of course,
> and the range of C "dialects" increases with every release with a
> new feature or pragma or whatever.  If you are writing a particular
> program for use with one version of one compiler on one system
> (and I haven't done that in a *long* time), you can go wild with
> the extensions.  If you might want to reuse some of your code
> sometime, be careful with them.
> 
And remember, we tend to underestimate the range of platforms and time
frame within which code will be forced to run.  Witness this little
thing called the Y2K problem...

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

David said

<<Think of the standard as what you can count on in the language.  The
actual language a given compiler will accept is different, of course,
and the range of C "dialects" increases with every release with a
new feature or pragma or whatever.  If you are writing a particular
program for use with one version of one compiler on one system
(and I haven't done that in a *long* time), you can go wild with
the extensions.  If you might want to reuse some of your code
sometime, be careful with them.
>>

Even if you are using one particular compiler on one particular system,
you should not go "wild" using extensions. There are definite downsides
to using extensions:

1. They are often ill defined compared to the standardized features

2. There is no guarantee that they will continue to work in the same
	way from one version of the compiler to another

3. Standard tools for the language that might otherwise be usable may not
	be able to handle the extensions.

4. Programmers who know the language well may still not know the 
        extensions, so the resulting program may be less maintainable.

This does not mean that extensions should never be used, just that the
programmer should

(a) be very aware of what is and is not an extension.

(b) use extensions judiciously when they are definitely useful (i.e.
	it would be much harder or impossible to perform the required
	function without using the extensions.

As an example of a worthwhile extension, consider the nested functions
of GNU C. These are quite portable, in that they can be used on any
GCC implementation, are well defined, and are extremely useful (it
continues to amaze me that C and C++ omit this very useful feature, well
known, and well understood to be useful, since the days of Algol-60).
(note that nested functions are particularly valuable in the
context of multi-threaded programs, since they allow the use of non-local
variables that are thread specific.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Patricia Shanahan]

Robert Dewar wrote:
...
> This does not mean that extensions should never be used, just that the
> programmer should
> 
> (a) be very aware of what is and is not an extension.
> 
> (b) use extensions judiciously when they are definitely useful (i.e.
>         it would be much harder or impossible to perform the required
>         function without using the extensions.
> 
> As an example of a worthwhile extension, consider the nested functions
> of GNU C. These are quite portable, in that they can be used on any
> GCC implementation, are well defined, and are extremely useful (it
> continues to amaze me that C and C++ omit this very useful feature, well
> known, and well understood to be useful, since the days of Algol-60).
> (note that nested functions are particularly valuable in the
> context of multi-threaded programs, since they allow the use of non-local
> variables that are thread specific.

I would add:

(c) Prominently document the use of extensions. If the extension is
critical to the structure of the program, make sure it is discussed in
the highest level of program documentation.

For example, if your C-with-gcc-extensions program does depend on
nested functions, say so somewhere where anyone considering compiling
the program is likely to see it, so they won't be trapped into
thinking it is a standard conforming program.

Patricia

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[firewind]

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Brock wrote:

> firewind wrote in message ...
> <<snipp
> >And I'm curious as to the usefulness of this, anyway. How can you use a
> >structure that you don't know the layout of?
> <<
> 
> I would think that an OO programmer in particular would not want to know
> anything about the implementation(layout) of the object, just the interface.

But the poster complained that there was no way to find out how many
things were -in- the object. If you don't want and don't need to know the
layout, why would you need to know -this-?

[-                               firewind                                   -]
[-   email: firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org (home), firewind@aurdev.com (work)  -]
[-          "You're just jealous because the voices talk to -me-."          -]
[-                   Have a good day, and enjoy your C.                     -]
[-          (on a crusade of grumpiness where grumpiness is due)            -]

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Ian Piumarta]

firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org> writes:
> Hmm... the 'C Extensions' section of the gcc Info pages seem pretty
> complete and decently detailed to me. Is there something I don't know? :)

Some of the extensions don't work on all architectures; e.g. global
register variables (and the associated -ffixed and -fcall-used compiler
options) were broken in gcc for PowerPC/RS6000 the last time I checked.
Some of the extensions also break documented behaviour in other ways;
e.g. first-class labels and the compiler options to enable coverage
testing (-a -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs) do not mix well (presumably
because the compiler can't figure out exactly where an "arc" from a
"computed goto" goes to ;).

Unfortunately (at least for language implementors) some of the gcc
extensions are crucial to achieving good performance.  For gcc and
public-domain source code, at least, I agree with the poster who
suggested the pragmatic approach of declaring with which compiler the
code compiles successfully, and leaving it at that.  (In commercial
situations I can accept that "responsible programming behaviour" might
be very different.)

Ian

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

Peter said

<<regarding documentation of GNU C>>

>I don't think it's very well defined; there are questions about it which
>can only be answered by looking at the code, and where there's no committment
>that the behavior is the same everywhere.

   Well sure there are features that are implementation dependent, like the
   assembler statement feature, but that is true of any language

It's better documented than some languages, but much less well documented
than even C89.  :)

   Details would be interesting! I know of no cases of things not being
   well documented, but would be interested in knowing.

(Also, at least some of the documentation is incorrect.)

   Details would be interesting! I know of no such cases, but would be
   interested in knowing!

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Guillermo Schwarz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2476 bytes --]



Shelly Mujtaba wrote:

> the truth of this whole matter is none...what will eventually pay off is
> your application modeling skills. If you can take a problem and model an
> elegant solution for it ...any language will do. I have created
> applications in Java and then recreated them in smalltalk and c++ and what
> really helped was not my knowledge of the language but  understanding the
> model. but then  if we are discussing career as a "coder" ...well...

Your idea is a nice one. It sounds great at least. "It is not the languagethat
matters but the design". It is hard to prove anything beyond that,
bacause you can always say the desing was the problem and not the
language.
OTOH, there are some designs that can be implemented in Java and C++.
Take for example the following design:
"I need a way to express lambda expressions so that I can make a graphic
with it, for example: y = x^2, and having those as variables in a program".

A Smalltalker would just use the compiler to evaluate the lambda expressions,
while the C++ programmer would have a 6 months job trying to achieve
the same.

Maybe you can say this example was not fare, because it turned out that most
of the implementation is already written in Smalltalk. Ok. I agree with you,
it was already coded in Smalltalk, so only an interface was needed.

Let us take another more real example:
"I want an object transport to transport objects in a network between
applications. Objects can be moved or copied depending on the object
itself, on the sender and on the receiver, and objects can be persistent or
transient".

A Smalltalker would think using TCP/IP (or another network protocol),
serializing the objects, and making the 2 protocols (move and copy) will
mean 2 days of work (if lazy) because everything is already done. Probably
what will really take time will be to make the design to make extensible
applications on the net, calculate how to redistribute objects in the final
app. etc.

But in C++ even serializing objects will mean a lot of work. Forget about
study how to redistribute objects.

Conclusion:
Which app. would need to be coded in C++ if Smalltalk already exists?
Why should someone bother with edit, compile, link, run, debug if it can be
done all on the fly?
Why would someone mess with a wanna be OOL if a OOL from the ground
up is available?
--
I use CAPS to emphasize, not to yell.
I take unpopular positions.
This signature is copyrighted and used without permission.


[-- Attachment #2: Card for Guillermo  Schwarz --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 312 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Guillermo  Schwarz
n:              Schwarz;Guillermo 
org:            ITS
email;internet: gschwarz@its.cl
title:          Software Engineer
note:           Remove stop.spam to reply by mail.
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Shelly Mujtaba]

the truth of this whole matter is none...what will eventually pay off is
your application modeling skills. If you can take a problem and model an
elegant solution for it ...any language will do. I have created
applications in Java and then recreated them in smalltalk and c++ and what
really helped was not my knowledge of the language but  understanding the
model. but then  if we are discussing career as a "coder" ...well...
			regards 
		shelly

-- 
shelly@objsoft.com
http://www.objsoft.com
Serious Tools for Serious Java Developers

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 10:11:55 -0400, Guillermo Schwarz
<gschwarz@netup.cl> uttered:

>That's true. C is not object oriented. C++ is just an Smalltalk
>wannabe.

Um, nope. Stroustrup missed the language Simula, so C++'s OO roots
like in the language Simula-67. For a Smalltalk wannabe, try
Objective-C, which essentially is "C with embedded Smalltalk
statements". Other OO C-like languages include LPC, C+@ ("cat"), TADS
etc. The "language list" is posted to comp.lang.misc every now and
then, and is accessible via the web, though I do not have an URL
handy.

-- 
"In practical terms, borders are little more than lines on a map."
- FAO lady, "The X-Files"
toriw@online.no      http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Philip Hunt]

arnie sherman wrote:
> 
> to return briefly to the original topic of this thread:
> 
> i'm studying programing, including smalltalk (smalltalk express), &
> would like to know not so much which language will pay the most, but
> rather, which will be more likely to make me employable in the
> shortest time (as an entry level programmer) ? 

C++ and Java.

> whenever i discuss web design w/ placement people they immediatly want
> to know if i know java. i suspect this is a trendy thing, though also
> reflecting some real possibilities for employment in the immediate
> future.

If you want to get into web-based stuff, Java is particularly 
useful. Perl is also quite useful (for CGI scripts).

-- 
Phil Hunt                   phil@oyster.co.uk
Oyster Systems Ltd    http://www.oyster.co.uk

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

Jon said

<<There is nothing special about C++ in this respect.  You can do this
in anything (in particular the Ada take would in all likelihood look
very close to the C++ take).  Now, OTOH (as someone else already
mentioned), you already get this for free in Common Lisp.  Of course
making it efficient is rather more than "a little harder"...
>>

No, it is easier to do this in Ada because of the exception support.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Robert Dewar]

P. Shanahan said

<<For example, if your C-with-gcc-extensions program does depend on
nested functions, say so somewhere where anyone considering compiling
the program is likely to see it, so they won't be trapped into
thinking it is a standard conforming program.
>>>

Note that GNU-C is in fact a well defined extension of C, with a highly
portable implementation. So it is quite reasonable to just have a statement
that the program is written in GNU-C rather than C.

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[firewind]

On 2 Jan 1998, Peter Seebach wrote:

> In article <dewar.883752086@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >Note that GNU-C is in fact a well defined extension of C, with a highly
> >portable implementation. So it is quite reasonable to just have a statement
> >that the program is written in GNU-C rather than C.
> 
> I don't think it's very well defined; there are questions about it which
> can only be answered by looking at the code, and where there's no committment
> that the behavior is the same everywhere.

Hmm... the 'C Extensions' section of the gcc Info pages seem pretty
complete and decently detailed to me. Is there something I don't know? :)

> It's better documented than some languages, but much less well documented
> than even C89.  :)

Certainly. I would at least hope that an international standard is more
detailed than Some Vendor's extensions. :)

[-                               firewind                                   -]
[-   email: firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org (home), firewind@aurdev.com (work)  -]
[-          "You're just jealous because the voices talk to -me-."          -]
[-                   Have a good day, and enjoy your C.                     -]
[-          (on a crusade of grumpiness where grumpiness is due)            -]

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Peter Seebach]

In article <dewar.883752086@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Note that GNU-C is in fact a well defined extension of C, with a highly
>portable implementation. So it is quite reasonable to just have a statement
>that the program is written in GNU-C rather than C.

I don't think it's very well defined; there are questions about it which
can only be answered by looking at the code, and where there's no committment
that the behavior is the same everywhere.

It's better documented than some languages, but much less well documented
than even C89.  :)

(Also, at least some of the documentation is incorrect.)

-s
-- 
seebs@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer.  Copyright '97
All rights reserved.  This was not sent by my cat.  C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation.  Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!  Plethora . Net

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Richard Kenner]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980102134130.143H-100000@metroid.dyn.ml.org> firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org> writes:
>Hmm... the 'C Extensions' section of the gcc Info pages seem pretty
>complete and decently detailed to me. Is there something I don't know? :)

It's fairly complete, but the discussion there is not at the level of
a language standard document, leaving a significant number of
ambiguities.  One that's been the source of a lot of recent discussion,
for example, is the role of "volatile" in "extended asm" statements
with no output operands.

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Berna L Massingill]

In article <68e0un$1sf$1@nntp.msstate.edu>,
Billy Chambless <billy@cast.msstate.edu> wrote:
>In article <34AA80B3.E651528D@its.cl>, Guillermo Schwarz <gschwarz@its.cl> writes:
>
>|> .... [ snip ] ....
>|> UNIX didn't stay up more than 3 days until LINUX was born.
>
>Hmmm....maybe you've had bad luck with Unix. This certainly doesn't 
>fit with my own experiences with various Unixes, including SunOS,
>AIX, SCO, Irix, and errr... whatever TI called their Unix that they put
>on their long-forgotten workstations.
>
>|> I've seen linuxes uptime as long as 1 year.
>
>The only time we usually reboot any of our 20 or so Unix machines is for
>power outages or hardware upgrades.
>
> .... [ snip ] ....

That's my experience too.  The workstation that used to sit on my
desk (a Sun something running SunOS) was up for a fairly amazing
total of 676 days -- between an unscheduled power outage late in 1995
and a scheduled outage last summer.  Now *that*'s stable.

-- blm

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Jacqueline U. Robertson]

By my reading, the point that 'language doesn't matter' assumes
equivalent skills in all languages studied and equivalent tool availability.

A couple of months ago there was an excelent article in VA Report that
explained why A Smalltalk developer was pretty much permanently going to
remain more productive than a Java developer (it has to do with all the
extra 'stuff' one has to remember while doing Java development, and the
fact that people can recall at best 5-9 things in short term memory at
once).  

Secondly, I've watched for years while the various analyst groups (Gartner,
Meta, et. al.) have claimed that C++ tools would catch up to Smalltalk
tool 'within 2 years'.  Hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it will.

Given that, the prerequisites for the assumption don't hold, and won't
hold anytime soon....




James A. Robertson
email: jamesr@parcplace.com
phone: 410 952-0471

<note that I am posting through my wife's account.  I don't claim to speak for
her>

In article <34AD2228.ADFB60DB@its.cl>,
Guillermo Schwarz  <gschwarz@its.cl> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------DC0FD5ABE0708554F0A660BA
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Shelly Mujtaba wrote:
>
>> the truth of this whole matter is none...what will eventually pay off is
>> your application modeling skills. If you can take a problem and model an
>> elegant solution for it ...any language will do. I have created
>> applications in Java and then recreated them in smalltalk and c++ and what
>> really helped was not my knowledge of the language but  understanding the
>> model. but then  if we are discussing career as a "coder" ...well...
>
>Your idea is a nice one. It sounds great at least. "It is not the languagethat
>matters but the design". It is hard to prove anything beyond that,
>bacause you can always say the desing was the problem and not the
>language.
>OTOH, there are some designs that can be implemented in Java and C++.
>Take for example the following design:
>"I need a way to express lambda expressions so that I can make a graphic
>with it, for example: y = x^2, and having those as variables in a program".
>
>A Smalltalker would just use the compiler to evaluate the lambda expressions,
>while the C++ programmer would have a 6 months job trying to achieve
>the same.
>
>Maybe you can say this example was not fare, because it turned out that most
>of the implementation is already written in Smalltalk. Ok. I agree with you,
>it was already coded in Smalltalk, so only an interface was needed.
>
>Let us take another more real example:
>"I want an object transport to transport objects in a network between
>applications. Objects can be moved or copied depending on the object
>itself, on the sender and on the receiver, and objects can be persistent or
>transient".
>
>A Smalltalker would think using TCP/IP (or another network protocol),
>serializing the objects, and making the 2 protocols (move and copy) will
>mean 2 days of work (if lazy) because everything is already done. Probably
>what will really take time will be to make the design to make extensible
>applications on the net, calculate how to redistribute objects in the final
>app. etc.
>
>But in C++ even serializing objects will mean a lot of work. Forget about
>study how to redistribute objects.
>
>Conclusion:
>Which app. would need to be coded in C++ if Smalltalk already exists?
>Why should someone bother with edit, compile, link, run, debug if it can be
>done all on the fly?
>Why would someone mess with a wanna be OOL if a OOL from the ground
>up is available?
>--
>I use CAPS to emphasize, not to yell.
>I take unpopular positions.
>This signature is copyrighted and used without permission.
>
>
>--------------DC0FD5ABE0708554F0A660BA
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Guillermo  Schwarz
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
>begin:          vcard
>fn:             Guillermo  Schwarz
>n:              Schwarz;Guillermo 
>org:            ITS
>email;internet: gschwarz@its.cl
>title:          Software Engineer
>note:           Remove stop.spam to reply by mail.
>x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
>x-mozilla-html: TRUE
>version:        2.1
>end:            vcard
>
>
>--------------DC0FD5ABE0708554F0A660BA--
>

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Dean Roddey]

Guillermo Schwarz wrote:

> Shelly Mujtaba wrote:
>
> Conclusion:
> Which app. would need to be coded in C++ if Smalltalk already exists?
> Why should someone bother with edit, compile, link, run, debug if it can be
> done all on the fly?
> Why would someone mess with a wanna be OOL if a OOL from the ground
> up is available?

Well, its not because of an international conspiracy to destroy the minds of Smalltalk developers or anything. I think
that a lot of people, like me, who use C++ would like to have a better language. But, at the same time, we recognize that
performance is kind of a limiting factor. Even with a language like C++, which very much lives towards the speed side of
the speed/abstraction continuum, we see that our code has performance issues. Some of us just don't feel like we can
afford to move any further along that continuum right now.

And, when we do, I hope that it will not be Smalltalk or Java that makes us move that way. I hope that its a language that
takes the best of what's out there, plus a lot of what's been learned in recent years. I would hope that it would address
both the needs of high performance, statically typed, heavily compile type checked systems and those of on-the-fly
interpreted, distributed systems simultaneously.

--------------------------
Dean Roddey
The CIDLib Class Libraries
Charmed Quark Software
droddey@charmedquark.com
http://www.charmedquark.com

"Software engineers are, in many ways, similar to normal people"

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <01bd147e$11496760$6a28b4cf@carla.ici.net>
           carla@ici.net "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes:

>John Porter wrote:
>: Robert Dewar wrote:
>: > OK, so your compiler can compile memfoo without compiling. Wunderbar!
>But
>: > that does NOT mean that you can actually go ahead and call a routine
>memfoo
>: > if the standard forbids it. To do so would be incompetent programming.
> 
>: So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
>: preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
>: I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!
>
>No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it
>defined by any piece of paper.  A language is defined by usage.  A
>combination of compilers and the standard.

If you are saying that a piece of paper cannot define a language then you
are very, very wrong. If it can then it is perfectly reasonable to say
that the ISO standard document defines a language. It certainly claims
to define the C language and I can find no reason not to believe it (and
I have questioned many things in it).

>The ISO Standard defines the core of the language.

Thet's true. Where you go wrong is then saying that the C language is
some nebulous thing that is much larger than that.

> Any C compiler *must*
>support this common core, but it may also support various extensions to
>support the specifics of its platform.

That is true. 

> Just like the English language is
>not 'defined' by any single dictionary, rather the dictionary is a
>'snapshot'  of the language (or part of the language) at a particular point
>in time.

You are trying to apply the attributes of a natural language to a technical
language. Technical languages have precise definitions and that is simply
not a valid thing to do.

>Similarly the ANSI/ISO Standard is a snapshot of the common core of the C
>language.  The language itself continues to grow and evolve.

That was true up until standardisation. Since standardisation the language
evolves as the standard evolves. That's why standardisation is such a
significant point in a languages evolution.

> Actually C9X
>recognizes this but preparing a new 'snapshot' of the language (or at least
>the core).

C9X recognises that the C language needs to evolve and is the vehicle
for that evolution.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <34A8C6CC.3EC74017@acm.org> pats@acm.org "Patricia Shanahan" writes:

>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>> 
>> In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl> gschwarz@its.cl "Guillermo Schwarz"
> writes:
>...
>> >The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't mention>> >
>> >"reserved as identifiers with external linkage", that for me means "don't
>> >touch this,
>> >or trick"...
>> 
>> K&R2 doesn't define the language. It is an excellent book but there do seem to>> be a few things it doesn't cover properly. The index lists "reserved words"
>> but that just seems to refer to keywords. Even though it was revised after
>> the standard was released it seems to be based mainly on a draft standard.
>...
>
>"good and old K&R" may be K&R1, not K&R2.

You may be right. I though it was probably K&R2 because C just wasn't defined
that formally in the days of K&R1 so talking about "reserved as identifiers
with external linkage" in that context doesn't make much sense.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net>
           carla@ici.net "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes:

>Robert Dewar wrote:
>: John says
> 
>: <<So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the
>: preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it...
>: I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'!
>
>: Of course the answer is that the language is defined by the standard.
>What
>: is surprising is your exclamation mark at the end of a statement that
>should
>: be common understanding for any programmer.
>
>Only programmers who have no concept of what a language, any language is. 

On the contrary programmers are one of the few groups of people who have
the opportunity to understand a language right down to the fundamentals.
There are many different forms of communication that have to be considered.

>Even if the Standard does define the language, it only did so on the day
>the standard was finalized.

The standard's job is to define the language. It does so until it is
supplanted by a newer standard.

> Languages, even programming language, evolve
>and change over time.

Sure, however standardised languages change in infrequent large steps rather
than in incrementally in small steps.

> A Standards document can never be a current
>definition of a language, only the definition of the language at some point
>in the past.

C89 (with minor addenda) is the definition of the C language in 1998.
Actually by your argument C89 was never the definiton of the C language,
certainly not when it was ratified in 1989 when no compiler supported it.

> Even so, the ANSI/ISO Standards defining C only define the
>common core of the C language.  When C9X is finalized, at that moment it
>will define the core of the C programming language.  By the time it is
>actually published and distributed the language will have changed to a
>small extent.

You're not being consistent here. What has happened in that time period
to make it less definitive? If anything more compilers will support it
(which seems to be the basis of you take as the definition of the C
language).

>: Of course the language is not defined by the compiler, or any combination
>: of tools. This is nothing new, languages have been defined by standards
>: for a very long time. C came rather late to the standards business, but
>: even before the ANSI C standard was approved, C was defined by pieces
>: of paper, including for example the reference manual at the back of K&R.
>
>Keep on dreaming.  No language, ever, can be defined by a piece of paper. 

You'd be amazed then how many are.

>Unless it is a dead language that is no longer used and therefore no longer
>changes.  This concept is simply impossible.

Strange, I write a lot of code using C90 as my reference. It doesn't look
dead to me.

>: For anyone to think that a language is usefully defined by a compiler is
>: to me evidence of poor training. No one should be able to get out of any
>: CS degree program with this kind of misconception.
>
>This is true.  The language is defined by usage (*All* languages are
>defined by usage).

You're confusing natural and technical languages again. Even in natural
languages a lot of the language is defined by dictionaries and accepted
grammar rules.

>: However, as I said in my earlier message, I am afraid that this confusion
>: is a very common one and is responsible for a huge percentage of the
>problems
>: in porting code, regardless of the language.
>
>Yes it is important to understand the each compiler may represent a
>different dialect of the C language, one that may or may not be compatible
>with any other specific compiler.

Again, C is not a natural language.

>: If your only knowledge of the definition of a language comes from what
>you
>: find is accepted by your compiler, you can be sure that your code is
>unlikely
>: to be anywhere as near portable as it should be.
>
>True.  Too many programmers learn from BASIC where there is almost no
>cross-platform or even cross-compiler/interpreter compatibility.  It is
>difficult to impress students with the need to write portably with a
>language that is not portable.  About as effective as your father telling
>you not to smoke in between drags on his cigarette.  Just another reason
>not to use BASIC as a teaching tool (unless you are teaching how to make
>spagetti).

Much of the problem stems from people trying to apply the name BASIC
to a set of mostly incompatible languages with a common core (albeit
rather small). If you tell me a program is written in BASIC it tells me
very little about the program so it isn't a very useful description.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Jacqueline U. Robertson]

In article <34AEB339.4448B20@charmedquark.com>,
Dean Roddey  <droddey@charmedquark.com> wrote:
>performance is kind of a limiting factor. Even with a language like C++, which very much lives towards the speed side of
>the speed/abstraction continuum, we see that our code has performance issues. Some of us just don't feel like we can
>afford to move any further along that continuum right now.
>

Just curious - what kind of apps are you doing where the 'speed penalty'
of Smalltalk or Java would make C++ necessary ?  For UI driven apps,
both are more than fast enough, as user actions are the driving factor.  
If a dbms is on the back end, then the speed of the queries will limit
you regardless of language.


>And, when we do, I hope that it will not be Smalltalk or Java that makes us move that way. I hope that its a language that
>>takes the best of what's out there, plus a lot of what's been learned in recent years. I would hope that it would address
>both the needs of high performance, statically typed, heavily compile type checked systems and those of on-the-fly
>interpreted, distributed systems simultaneously.
>

Just as an FYI, Smalltalk is not now (and has not been for years from any
of the major vendors) interpreted.  


James A. Robertson
email: jamesr@parcplace.com
phone: 410 952-0471

<note that I am posting through my wife's account.  I don't claim to speak for
her>

>--------------------------
>Dean Roddey
>The CIDLib Class Libraries
>Charmed Quark Software
>droddey@charmedquark.com
>http://www.charmedquark.com
>
>"Software engineers are, in many ways, similar to normal people"
>
>

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Dean Roddey]

Jacqueline U. Robertson wrote:

> In article <34AEB339.4448B20@charmedquark.com>,
> Dean Roddey  <droddey@charmedquark.com> wrote:
> >performance is kind of a limiting factor. Even with a language like C++, which very much lives towards the speed side of
> >the speed/abstraction continuum, we see that our code has performance issues. Some of us just don't feel like we can
> >afford to move any further along that continuum right now.
> >
>
> Just curious - what kind of apps are you doing where the 'speed penalty'
> of Smalltalk or Java would make C++ necessary ?  For UI driven apps,
> both are more than fast enough, as user actions are the driving factor.
> If a dbms is on the back end, then the speed of the queries will limit
> you regardless of language.
>

For me personally, its things like ray tracing and fractals.

However, just for the record, I kind of find that argument less valid these days. If you have a GUI application, and that's all
you are doing and its just basically responding to events with pretty trivial actions, then basically you can get the same
performance pretty much until the CPU starts hitting 100% utililization during peaks. That leaves a lot of room for a language
(and its libraries) to eat up CPU cycles without making a noticeable difference in performance in that kind of 'one user driven
app' situation.

But these days a lot more tends to be going on. I tend to have network stuff going on in the background, compiles going on in
the background, image generation, etc... In such a situation, the argument above falls down because that 'slop area' is no
longer free. In that kind of situation, even 10% more CPU utilization driving the GUI (or other non-problem domain grunt work
that does not directly contribute to the job at hand) takes valuable time from other things going on. The more CPU constrained
the workstation, the more that this is true. In a workstation that's doing industrial control, heavy graphics, video, etc...
using the most efficient language possible can make a difference. All of those extra cycles, though never really grotesque in
any one operation, begin to add up.

--------------------------
Dean Roddey
The CIDLib Class Libraries
Charmed Quark Software
droddey@charmedquark.com
http://www.charmedquark.com

"Software engineers are, in many ways, similar to normal people"

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Patricia Shanahan]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> 
> In article <34A8C6CC.3EC74017@acm.org> pats@acm.org "Patricia Shanahan" writes:
> 
> >Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl> gschwarz@its.cl "Guillermo Schwarz"
> > writes:
> >...
> >> >The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't mention>> >
> >> >"reserved as identifiers with external linkage", that for me means "don't
> >> >touch this,
> >> >or trick"...
> >>
> >> K&R2 doesn't define the language. It is an excellent book but there do seem to>> be a few things it doesn't cover properly. The index lists "reserved words"
> >> but that just seems to refer to keywords. Even though it was revised after
> >> the standard was released it seems to be based mainly on a draft standard.
> >...
> >
> >"good and old K&R" may be K&R1, not K&R2.
> 
> You may be right. I though it was probably K&R2 because C just wasn't defined
> that formally in the days of K&R1 so talking about "reserved as identifiers
> with external linkage" in that context doesn't make much sense.
> 
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
> Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
> -----------------------------------------

Note that "good and old K&R" is described as NOT mentioning "reserved
as identifiers with external linkage".

Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java?

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <34AA80B3.E651528D@its.cl> gschwarz@its.cl "Guillermo Schwarz" writes:

>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------3DDDA4709FEFF727FDE888E1
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>
>>  Unix
>> was gaining strength from the exposure it was getting in Universities.
>
>Yes.
>
>> Most people who bought DOS weren't even aware that Unix existed.
>>
>
>In the early 80's that was true. But in the late 80's UNIX was known toreplace
>other OS's. It did.

We were discussing the influences on the design of DOS. The design was well
set before the late 80's so that isn't really an issue.

>But now there in Windows NT in the horizon,
>which for the most part has been behind Novell Netware, and I think
>has almost killed it.
>What does this have to do with Smalltalk?
>Everything!
>Smalltalk was created in Xerox PARC as was the graphic workstation,
>the mouse and the ethernet. Guess which part is missing in every single
>desktop...

Perhaps the part least relevant to the way people use computers.

>> > They did not see that UNIX provided better performance (for
>> >the money), or that is was more reliable - which it wasn't at the time.
>>
>> What is your definition of "relaiblae"?
>
>Relaiblae? It must be latin for reliable ;^)Everybody knows it means "performs
> as
>expected".

I would hope not. If I expect Windows to crash regularly that doesn't mean
that it is reliable.

>UNIX didn't stay up more than 3 days until LINUX was born.

Get real. Lunix has never been one of the most reliable Unix platforms out
there although it is ceratinly a decent enough platform these days. A
commercial Unix system that died every 3 days would be junked by its users.
They expect reliability.

>I've seen linuxes uptime as long as 1 year.

Linux doesn't fare well here because there are often reasons to take the
typical small system that runs Linux down quite frequently. So seeing a
Linux system up for over a year is quite unusual. For many commercial
systems it can be quite common. A commercial Unix system might be *expected*
to stay up a year or more whereas, as your tone suggests, it is a surprise
to see a Linux system up this long (although as I say that isn't
necessarily a fault of Linux).

>Long life to Linux.

No arguments there.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Guillermo Schwarz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1252 bytes --]



Dean Roddey wrote:

> Jacqueline U. Robertson wrote:
>
> > Dean Roddey  <droddey@charmedquark.com> wrote:
> > >performance is kind of a limiting factor. Even with a language like C++, which very much lives towards the speed side of
> > >the speed/abstraction continuum, we see that our code has performance issues.
>
> > Just curious - what kind of apps are you doing where the 'speed penalty'
> > of Smalltalk or Java would make C++ necessary ?
> >
>
> For me personally, its things like ray tracing and fractals.
>
>  even 10% more CPU utilization driving the GUI  takes valuable time

 Smalltalk is by no means slower than C++. Maybe actual implementations are not fast
enough as C++ compilers. In any case,  if you are doing ray tracing, none C compiler
will do as well as a good assembly coder.
It is the nature of the problem: only mathmatics, for which the raw CPU is built in the first
place, no compiler can be smart enough to realize how to do operations in the faster order
(unless you need to do loophole optimization, for which a good loophole optimizer will
be the best and the compiler would be useless).

--
I use CAPS to emphasize, not to yell.
I take unpopular positions.
This signature is copyrighted and used without permission.


[-- Attachment #2: Card for Guillermo  Schwarz --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 312 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Guillermo  Schwarz
n:              Schwarz;Guillermo 
org:            ITS
email;internet: gschwarz@its.cl
title:          Software Engineer
note:           Remove stop.spam to reply by mail.
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34B10945.2844970E@its.cl>,
Guillermo Schwarz  <gschwarz@its.cl> wrote:
> Smalltalk is by no means slower than C++. Maybe actual implementations are not fast
>enough as C++ compilers. In any case,  if you are doing ray tracing, none C compiler

Oh so in your head there is an imaginary Smalltalk implementation that is
faster. The real world simply hasn't caught up yet. 

>will do as well as a good assembly coder.

Define ``do as well''. Does that include completing the project? Or
porting it rapidly to a newer, faster, cheaper platform?

Sure, the scenes in Titanic could _easily_ have been rendered on a network
of Alpha/Linux boxes had the code been written in MIPS assembly language
under IRIX, right?

C makes it feasible to write high-performance programs that are maintainable
and portable. Assembly language does not. If assembly language was
conductive to portability and maintainability, I'd use it in an instant.

>It is the nature of the problem: only mathmatics, for which the raw CPU is built in the first
>place, no compiler can be smart enough to realize how to do operations in the faster order
>(unless you need to do loophole optimization, for which a good loophole optimizer will
>be the best and the compiler would be useless).

What is loophole optimization? Finding the best way to do your taxes so
you don't have to pay?

Or perhaps you mean peephole optimization, something that is extremely
common.

Why can't a compiler's code generation back end incorporate this
optimization?

>--
>I use CAPS to emphasize, not to yell.
>I take unpopular positions.

You seem to take _unpopulated_ positions (if we don't count Scott Nudds,
of course).

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Jedi]

 "Dan" <dan@nospam.com> wrote:

> John Slaman <john.slaman@shaw.wave.ca> wrote in article
> <68dm0i$brv1@news.fiberlink.net>...
> > 
> >     Microsoft's Visual Basic 5
> > 
> > Words of caution
> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the

This is not true, in our shop the COBOL programmers and the VB programmers
are paid the same. Anyone with knowlege and skill is respected. We
encourage cross-training at all levels. There is movement usually from
COBOL programmer to VB programmer. I haven't seen any return back once
they leave the Mainframe developing arena. One thing I have seen is once a
COBOL programmer learns VB, there seems to more of a chance of that
programmer finding a better position with another company. Learning VB
will definitely add to your worth as a programmer.

> people
> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
> > 
The majority of our people who are hiring were once programmers. 


> 
> - Never respected by clods like you perhaps.  You don't know what you are
> talking about.
> - The pay is excellent IF you know what you are doing and are not just
> another bozo who read a 21 days book.  New Technology + High demand = $$$. 

You have to start somewhere. 

> If you can architect enterprise scale n-tier solutions with VB you can
> write your own ticket right now.  You don't know what you are talking
> about.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Highlander Consulting]

Dan wrote:

> > Words of caution
> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
> people
> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).

I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I
think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into
its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a
common goal is more important than learning a particular language.  Sure,
learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any*
language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire
you.  A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be
motivated.  Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree.  I think that
the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference.  I have proven
my aptitude for problem solving.  Programming is only a translation step after
that.

Robert Herrick

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Barrabazz]

Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?

Greetx


Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in article
<34B8DC0F.BA0554DB@acm.org>...
> Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program
> even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing
> that is communicated in a good CS degree course.
> 
> Patricia
> 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Patricia Shanahan]

I don't think it is the only way, though it is a simple and convenient
one. The problem with obtaining the same body of knowlege without
going through an actual course is answering the question "What is that
I don't know about computing, and ought to know?".

[Follow-ups limited to comp.lang.java.misc just because it happens to
be the first newsgroup in the list, and I got some e-mail from someone
who does not think the topic of how to improve one's programming
skills appropriate to comp.lang.ada]

Patricia

Barrabazz wrote:
> 
> Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
> to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?
> 
> Greetx
> 
> Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in article
> <34B8DC0F.BA0554DB@acm.org>...
> > Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program
> > even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing
> > that is communicated in a good CS degree course.
> >
> > Patricia
> >

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Carsten Arnholm]

Kaz Kylheku <bill@cafe.net> wrote in article
<699ndn$4fn$1@brie.direct.ca>...
> In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>,
> I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do
with
> experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone
getting
> a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
> Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
> campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
> in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)
> 
> >think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many
other
> >programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that
necessary to
> >make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down
into
> >its component parts, and address each small problem separately to
acheive a
> >common goal is more important than learning a particular language. 
Sure,
> 
> But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
> the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
> to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?
> 
> Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
> a software development position?

or: Would you automatically recommend a degree in CS for an analytical
chemistry position ? The argument goes both ways, does it not ?

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>,
Highlander Consulting  <highcon@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>
>> > Words of caution
>> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
>> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
>> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
>> people
>> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
>
>I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
>self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
>However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
>offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
>have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I

I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with
experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone getting
a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)

>think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
>programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
>make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into
>its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a
>common goal is more important than learning a particular language.  Sure,

But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?

Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
a software development position?

>learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any*
>language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire
>you.  A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be
>motivated.  Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree.  I think that
>the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference.  I have proven
>my aptitude for problem solving.  Programming is only a translation step after
>that.

Umm. I have seen lamentable code written by people with science Ph. D's.
Horribly broken, poorly designed, unmaintainable. Nevertheless, from the code
it was apparent that the programmer had a remarkable ability to solve a
problem by breaking it into smaller problems, and a great deal of potential.
Just no software experience. 

Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not
revealing the whole picture.  There is more to your background than just the
three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone
with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job,
and immediately perform in that job as well.

Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs
someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't
afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month
training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to
master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Patricia Shanahan]

Highlander Consulting wrote:
> 
> Dan wrote:
> 
> > > Words of caution
> > > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> > > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> > > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
> > people
> > > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
> 
> I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
> self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
> However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
> offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
> have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I
> think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
> programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
> make a good programmer.  

Many, many, years ago I landed my first programming job on the basis
of a mathematics degree, a couple of programming classes, and doing
very well on a test of problem decomposition that my employer was
using as part of the interview process.

A couple of years later I went back to college part-time to get my
MSCS, even though I did not need it for any immediate career purposes.
It is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I learned a lot that
I would not have guessed or worked out for myself about data
structures, how programming languages are put together etc.

I became a much better programmer, not so much for the degree, but for
what I learned while getting it.

Someone who can program acceptably well using only talent will program
even better combining talent with the body of knowlege about computing
that is communicated in a good CS degree course.

Patricia

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ron Peterson]

Barrabazz wrote:
> 
> Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
> to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?

I think you will be better rewarded if you learn to play golf and keep
abreast of football, basketball, and baseball.

Certainly, most of what you need to know is in the books. But, there are
over a dozen computer books out there. Which ones should you read? A
teacher or other programmers can guide you to the right ones. 

How do you convince someone that you know the subject matter?

	Ron

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[anonymous]

Ah, the old discipline bigotry problem..........

Erudition works,  but peer interaction cerainly is a plus (taking a class)..
Beating one's head against the wall for days on a problem is more likely
to occur less often in the peer environment (though this doesn't
necessarily have to be in school.

It would seem to me however that in this day and age,in a  typical
eduactional setting, a Chemistry student would be more likely to have a
higer degree of exposure to programming than a programmer major would to
Chemistry  but not by much..  maybe a year..



> Barrabazz wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, but, why are you sure "a good CS degree course" (haha) is the only way
> > to get to that knowledge? Ever been in a bookstore or library?
> 
> I think you will be better rewarded if you learn to play golf and keep
> abreast of football, basketball, and baseball.
> 
> Certainly, most of what you need to know is in the books. But, there are
> over a dozen computer books out there. Which ones should you read? A
> teacher or other programmers can guide you to the right ones. 
> 
> How do you convince someone that you know the subject matter?
> 
>         Ron

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Highlander Consulting]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with
> experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone getting
> a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
> Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
> campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
> in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)

I didn't say that I wasn't a hacker or that I didn't have any computer experience.
My point was that earning a CS degree doesn't imply good programming skills.

> But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
> the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
> to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?

Yes, I think that those skills are among those necessary to be a good programmer.
If a programmer has no ability to analyze problems and create a logical solution,
then he is not a good programmer.

> Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
> a software development position?

No, but that also wasn't my point.

> Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not
> revealing the whole picture.  There is more to your background than just the
> three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone
> with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job,
> and immediately perform in that job as well.

There was no insinuation that anyone with a chemistry PhD can land a software job.
The insinuation was that learning a language and learning to program effectively
are two different tasks.

> Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs
> someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't
> afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month
> training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to
> master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months.

I think that any company that *wouldn't* hire somebody who could suck up a
four-year degree in 6 months is the obtuse one!

Robert Herrick

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Charles F Hankel]

On 11 Jan 1998 06:04:39 GMT, bill@cafe.net (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:

> In article <34B71B71.1EFDCAD8@ix.netcom.com>,
> Highlander Consulting  <highcon@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Dan wrote:
> >
> >> > Words of caution
> >> > - you will never be respected (and rightly so)
> >> > - it doesn't pay much (because you'll be competing with people with no
> >> > degrees and non-Computer Science degrees who are self taught, and the
> >> people
> >> > doing the hiring don't value the process of software engineering).
> >
> >I have no love of VB, but I have to respond to the idea that people who are
> >self-taught aren't that great.  I have a PhD......in analytical chemistry.
> >However, somehow, I was able to fool that tiny little company--Boeing--into
> >offering me a job in software development.  Can you tell me why-when I don't
> >have a CS degree-that I was offered a job??  I have to say that, although I
> 
> I have no clue why you were offered that job, but it probably had to do with
> experience other than in analytical chemistry.  I can't imagine anyone getting
> a Ph. D. in such a discipline without exposure to computers. At my Alma
> Mater, the chemistry department are among the biggest UNIX weenies on
> campus with the most powerful machines. :) Admit it; you were a hacker
> in your undergraduate days and beyond. :)
> 
> >think that taking classes about data structures, databases, and many other
> >programming paradigms, I don't think that a degree in CS is that necessary to
> >make a good programmer.  The ability to analyze a problem, break it down into
> >its component parts, and address each small problem separately to acheive a
> >common goal is more important than learning a particular language.  Sure,
> 
> But these skills don't make you a good programmer. Or are you saying that
> the programmers who created the software crisis of the 60's weren't able
> to analyze a problem and break it down into its component parts?
> 
> Would you automatically recommend an randomly chosen chemistry Ph. D. for
> a software development position?
> 
> >learning C or C++ is very helpful, but displaying the ability to learn *any*
> >language to solve any problem is the thing that makes companies want to hire
> >you.  A degree is important, but only to display one's ability to learn and be
> >motivated.  Trust me, I landed a job with a chemistry degree.  I think that
> >the level of my degree--not the subject--made the difference.  I have proven
> >my aptitude for problem solving.  Programming is only a translation step after
> >that.
> 
> Umm. I have seen lamentable code written by people with science Ph. D's.
> Horribly broken, poorly designed, unmaintainable. Nevertheless, from the code
> it was apparent that the programmer had a remarkable ability to solve a
> problem by breaking it into smaller problems, and a great deal of potential.
> Just no software experience. 
> 
> Either Boeing just took an obtuse chance on you, or you are simply not
> revealing the whole picture.  There is more to your background than just the
> three letters P, H and D---I simply don't believe your insinuation that anyone
> with a chemistry Ph. D. can land a challenging software development job,
> and immediately perform in that job as well.
> 
> Would a small company have taken a similar chance? A small company needs
> someone who can produce quality software pretty much from day one; they can't
> afford to hire an academic wizard and then send him or her on a six month
> training course, _even if_ that person has the intellectual capacity to
> master the equivalent of a four year CS curriculum in that six months.

I seem to recall that the degree level was once described as follows:

	BS	Bullsh*t
	MS	More Sh*t
	PhD	Piled Higher and Deeper

Is there any truth in this?

Charles
PhD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <anonymous-1401980358130001@t9bsm0-03.tserv.umassd.edu>,
anonymous@anonymous.org (anonymous) wrote:

> Ah, the old discipline bigotry problem..........
[snip]
> It would seem to me however that in this day and age,in a  typical
> eduactional setting, a Chemistry student would be more likely to have a
> higer degree of exposure to programming than a programmer major would to
> Chemistry  but not by much..  maybe a year..

It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a
PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet.  One of the best
programmers / engineers I ever hired had degrees in Linguistics and
Mathematical Linguistics.  IBM used to hire PhDs in Philosophy as Systems
Analysts, with great success.  Perhaps they still do.

Computer science is a branch of applied mathematics, so the converse is
not true -- A computer science degree does not help with understanding of
the physical sciences.  If the problem requires such understanding, a pure
computer science person is likely to fail, for lack of necessary
background.


Joe Gwinn

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dnns]

IBM does actually still hire Philosophy majors...in fact they are one
of the only place to go with said degree, as far as I can tell.  What
they seem to be able to do is analyze problems logically, which suits
IBMs well, seeing as they make no sense to the rest of us...

dnns


On 19 Jan 1998 22:06:04 GMT, "Judson McClendon"
<judmczzz@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ... hard-core technical subject can learn programming ...
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> ... IBM used to hire PhDs in Philosophy as Systems Analysts ...
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>'Philosophy' a 'hard-core technical subject'?  ;-)
>--
>Judson McClendon          This is a faithful saying and worthy of all
>Sun Valley Systems        acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the
>judmczzz@mindspring.com   world to save sinners  (1 Timothy 1:15)
>(please remove zzz from email id to respond)
>

Philosophers

[Nick Roberts]

I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).

-- 

Nick Roberts
Croydon, UK

Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software; Independent Software Development
Consultant
* Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com * Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124 *
*** Always game for a verbal joust (usually as the turkey) ***

Spam--> was:Re: Philosophers

[Dann Corbit]

I think, therefore I spam.
--
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ ftp: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu, C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9
Try "C Programming: A Modern Approach" ISBN 0-393-96945-2
Want Software?  Algorithms?  Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com

Nick Roberts wrote in message
<01bd284c$4b0b4fe0$c0f682c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>...
>I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
>the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
>philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
>programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
>and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
>actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).

Re: Spam--> was:Re: Philosophers

[Nick Roberts]

Ooooooh ... Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar ...
-- 

Nick Roberts
Croydon, UK

Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software; Independent Software Development
Consultant
* Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com * Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124 *
*** Always game for a verbal joust (usually as the turkey) ***


Dann Corbit <dcorbit@solutionsiq.com> wrote in article
<6ab6li$fhf$1@client3.news.psi.net>...
> I think, therefore I spam.

Re: Philosophers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <01bd284c$4b0b4fe0$c0f682c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>,
Nick Roberts <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
>the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
>philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
>programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
>and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
>actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).

I'd take the CS person who minored in philosophy (or vice versa).  There is a
good deal of synergy between CS, mathematics and philosophy.  They are all
purely intellectual disciplines whose objective is to find the truth.
In computer science, truth appears in many ways: one incarnation of truth
appears in a correct design and implementation of something.

At any decent school, at least, philosophy is far from the typical liberal
arts twaddle with which it may be unfortunately associated by way of being
part of the same faculty.

Re: Philosophers

[John G.]

"Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
>the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
>philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
>programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
>and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
>actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).

Well Nick, judging from the whopping great number of comp groups to
which you (and now I) have cross-posted this flamebait, I'd have to
say that _your_ thinking is a bit muddled. <g>

However, I would like to ask you if you've considered the phenomenon
of "Computer Calvinism" which has rooted itself so firmly in the terra
of CS. For example, the C language itself was slapped together by a
couple of hackers so that they could use an old computer banished to
the depths. Since then, C has attained mythological status, requiring
the invention of a bible, priests, and a holy church. There are
practical benefits to this sort of fanaticism, but the primary goal
seems to be to take all the fun out of it! 

Where in the standard does it mention, or even _hint_, at just having
*fun*? It's as though fun is something which should appeal only to
lesser beings, while those who desire to join the church of ANSI must
treat programming as a soul-consuming avocation. Sure, there are times
to be serious. But there should also be time for play, as well.
IMNSHO, creativity feeds upon chaos and irrational emotions, not upon
endless lists of rules, and rules _about_ the rules.

It seems that the desire to impose order upon computer programmers has
resulted in programmers wanting to _become_ the computer. Personally,
I think computing is a neat trick, and amusing in an odd, obsessive
sort of way, but hardly anything to brag about. It's not as though
computers represent a step in human evolution. Even the ideas which CS
inspires do not appear to represent anything particularly deep. CS
borrows heavily from other fields of thought, but gives back little.
CS might be said to be a wonderful example of applied mathematics, but
has its existence expanded the ability of the human mind? In essence,
I think not. Even AI -- as popularly concieved -- seems doomed to
linger in the realm of fantasy.

Geeze, I better stop or I'll just keep yacking. No doubt I've already
been placed on a shitlist or two. <shrug> Life goes on, eh?

Nice talkin' wit' ya,
John G.

Re: Philosophers

[Mike Whiten]

Nick Roberts wrote:
>I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
>the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
>philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
>programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
>and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
>actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).

Philosophy is what scientists do in their spare time.  Actually,
this is true for philosophy grads... it's just that they have
a lot *more* spare time on their hands...

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

Mike Whiten wrote:
> 
> Nick Roberts wrote:
> >I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
> >the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
> >philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
> >programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
> >and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
> >actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).
> 
> Philosophy is what scientists do in their spare time.

'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
'natural philosophers'!

(For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'.  For the aware... muse
over the difference between 'philos sophos' and 'scire')

> Actually, this is true for philosophy grads... it's just that they have
> a lot *more* spare time on their hands...

Hey, the reason I went into coding was because nobody was hiring
Corporate Philosophers... isn't it obvious?

DD

Re: Philosophers

[John G.]

firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, John G. wrote:

>> However, I would like to ask you if you've considered the phenomenon
>> of "Computer Calvinism" which has rooted itself so firmly in the terra
>> of CS. For example, the C language itself was slapped together by a
>> couple of hackers so that they could use an old computer banished to
>> the depths. 

>Not even close. Have you ever read "The Development of the C Language,"
>by Dennis Ritchie? If not, don't go make incorrect statements about its
>origins. First, it was not 'slapped together'; it followed a long and
>logical evolution of languages; from BCPL to B to C. Second, the PDP-11 was 
>certainly not old at the time, it was quite new, and was not 'banished to the 
>depths' of anything. Third, the machine C originated on is hardly indicitive 
>of anything at all.

*hehe* Okay, I was fishing and you took the bait most admirably.
Thankyou. However, I am always suspicious of the ability of history to
rewrite itself. Sometimes the truth is recast in order to live up to
expectations. <shrug> Oh well.

>> Since then, C has attained mythological status, requiring the invention of 
>> a bible, priests, and a holy church. 

>If so, I've been skipping church for many many years, and have yet to read
>the bible. Darn.

   Your timely response certainly speaks of your devotion to the
Church of C (hereafter referred to as the CoC.) Methinks it a safe bet
that you are quick to follow the pronouncements of the Priests of the
Standard and their novitiates. And please don't tell me that you're
not influenced by the what you read on clc; why else would you be
here? Or have you been cast out?  };o)

>> There are practical benefits to this sort of fanaticism, but the primary 
>> goal seems to be to take all the fun out of it! 
>> 
>> Where in the standard does it mention, or even _hint_, at just having
>> *fun*? 

>The standard is a technical document that describes what C -is-. It is up
>to the -programmer- to apply that language in an enjoyable (to him, at
>least) fashion.

   IMNSHO, the document in question -- arrived at by committee, no
less -- does not describe what C -is- because the document _defines_
it. There is a difference between description and definition.
Description presupposes existence; that what is being described exists
without, or possibly even in spite of, the description. Definition,
however, is an entirely different matter. Definition is a process of
creation, not observation.

   Has the Bullshit-O-Meter gone off yet? <g>

>> It's as though fun is something which should appeal only to
>> lesser beings, while those who desire to join the church of ANSI must
>> treat programming as a soul-consuming avocation. Sure, there are times
>> to be serious. But there should also be time for play, as well.
>> IMNSHO, creativity feeds upon chaos and irrational emotions, not upon
>> endless lists of rules, and rules _about_ the rules.

>There must be rules, or it isn't fun for anybody. 

Hm, I feel the urge to salute my terminal. <g>

But in a sense and to a degree, yes, I agree. But where is the
dividing line between "enough" and "too much" with respect to
rule-making? I know, let's make a rule about it! 

>I certainly respect the
>rules the ISO standard has laid out, but I do not consider coding to be
>'a soul-consuming avocation.' Imagine if there were no 'holy book' of C;
>nothing to which programmer's could point and say, 'That's not correct.'
>Personally, I don't consider slogging through lots of code that uses a
>few non-portable constructs to save a few lines of a bit of thinking to
>be fun. 'Play' can only occur after the rules have been established and
>are followed. Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>you won't find one.

   Ah, but in what sense do you mean, "That's not correct." Are you
referring to "not correct" in the sense of a syntactical error, or an
error in logic which doesn't turn up right away, or in the sense of
programming successfully in an unconventional manner? For example, if
you choose a certain coding style, do you consider all other styles to
be "incorrect"? Human nature seems to lead to a distinct
stratification of the world into right and wrong, good and bad. This
binary thinking hounds us like a plague.

>> It seems that the desire to impose order upon computer programmers has
>> resulted in programmers wanting to _become_ the computer. 

>Eww. I wouldn't want to be a computer. -They- love repitition, for example,
>while I absolutely loath it.

Although there are certain activities which are highly repetitious yet
quite pleasurable when practiced with an enthusiastic partner. Like
ping-pong. <g>

>> Personally, I think computing is a neat trick, and amusing in an odd, 
>> obsessive sort of way, but hardly anything to brag about. 

>Well, computing being somewhat of a skill, there will be those who will,
>inevitably, brag about their prowess.

   I was addressing computing in a more or less nebular fashion, not
as an individual skill. CS is a demanding and challenging discipline,
of that I'm certain. And yet, if someone from a distant planet were
able to ask you, "What makes you human?", would you wave that
well-thumbed copy of K&RII in the air and proclaim, "I can program in
C!" We'd probably never hear from them again, and I wouldn't blame
them one bit (pun intended.)

>> It's not as though computers represent a step in human evolution. 

>Indeed.

>> Even the ideas which CS inspires do not appear to represent anything 
>> particularly deep. CS borrows heavily from other fields of thought, but 
>> gives back little.

>What do you expect? Telling a computer what to do is not a particularly
>'deep' process, and isn't likely to inspire anything 'deep.'

Well, you might have argued about the use of computers to "prove"
mathematical theorems using a brute-force approach, e.g., the map
coloring theorem. The debate over what constitues a proof in human
terms is really quite fascinating. For example, if a computer "proves"
a theorem which no human being could prove simply because of the sheer
bulk of computation required, has that theorem been proven? How can we
know? Are we redefining truth as a thing of consensus? Perhaps we will
eventually define truth as something beyond the grasp of a mere human
being. Perhaps we will relegate truth to the machine. Hey, don't we
already do that?

>> CS might be said to be a wonderful example of applied mathematics, but
>> has its existence expanded the ability of the human mind? In essence,
>> I think not. 

>That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to persue.

Of course not. That wasn't the point. And while I'm the first to admit
that my grasp of C is exceptionally meager, that doesn't make the
pursuit of C as a hobby any less enjoyable. It's just what the doctor
ordered for programming on my ancient laptop.

>> Even AI -- as popularly concieved -- seems doomed to linger in the realm 
>> of fantasy.

>I hope you are right. But that's a whole 'nother post.

Darn.

>The FAQ, like the C standard (and, for that matter, the Bible and the US
>Constitution) is often used as an authority by clueless people who don't
>seem to have read it, at least not with any level of comprehension.
>    -- Billy Chambless <billy@cast.msstate.edu> in comp.lang.c

   I have never used the FAQ, the C standard, the Bible, or the US
Constitution as sources of authority, nor do I claim to have ever read
them with any level of comprehension. Have a nice day!

John G.

Re: Philosophers

[Arnold Trembley]

The Goobers wrote:
> 
> Mike Whiten wrote:
> >
> > Nick Roberts wrote:
> > >I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
> > >the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
> > >philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
> > >programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
> > >and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
> > >actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).
> >
> > Philosophy is what scientists do in their spare time.
> 
> 'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
> 'natural philosophers'!
> 
> (For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
> 'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'.  For the aware... muse
> over the difference between 'philos sophos' and 'scire')

I am not aware, I had to go to my American Heritage dictionary for the
derivation.  "Philosophy" from the Greek "Loving Wisdom", "Science" from
the Latin "Scire" which means "to know".

> 
> > Actually, this is true for philosophy grads... it's just that they have
> > a lot *more* spare time on their hands...
> 
> Hey, the reason I went into coding was because nobody was hiring
> Corporate Philosophers... isn't it obvious?
> 
> DD

Okay, I only have a BS in English (having declined to take a foreign
language after high school French).  I took a couple of philosophy
courses in College.  They were fun but probably better suited for
criminal lawyers (is there any other kind?).  Lots of debate and
argument, but no conclusions as far as I could tell.  Marginally more
polite than usenet, sometimes less polite.

Arnold Trembley
Software Engineer I (just a job title, still a programmer)
MasterCard International
"Y2K?  Because Centuries Happen!"

Re: Philosophers

[Jens Schweikhardt]

In comp.lang.c firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
 
[zap]

# Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
# you won't find one.

Love and war.

PS: Followup-To: talk.bizarre

Regards,

	Jens
--
Jens Schweikhardt  http://www.shuttle.de/schweikh
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

Arnold Trembley wrote:
> 
> The Goobers wrote:
> >
> > Mike Whiten wrote:
> > >
> > > Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > >I'm afraid I believe a great many people don't realise that philosophy is
> > > >the most 'hard core' field of study there is.  As Russell put it,
> > > >philosophy is "accurate thinking", which is really exactly what computer
> > > >programming is.  Give me a bunch of CS PhDs and a philosopher to employ,
> > > >and I'd have the philosopher every time.  They are the only ones who are
> > > >actually taught to _think_ (I really mean this!).
> > >
> > > Philosophy is what scientists do in their spare time.
> >
> > 'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
> > 'natural philosophers'!
> >
> > (For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
> > 'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'.  For the aware... muse
> > over the difference between 'philos sophos' and 'scire')
> 
> I am not aware, I had to go to my American Heritage dictionary for the
> derivation.  "Philosophy" from the Greek "Loving Wisdom", "Science" from
> the Latin "Scire" which means "to know".

Very good!  Now, for the kicker, check the derivation of
'mathematics'... but be cautious; the AHD Greek derivation is a bit...
incomplete.

> 
> >
> > > Actually, this is true for philosophy grads... it's just that they have
> > > a lot *more* spare time on their hands...
> >
> > Hey, the reason I went into coding was because nobody was hiring
> > Corporate Philosophers... isn't it obvious?
> >
> > DD
> 
> Okay, I only have a BS in English (having declined to take a foreign
> language after high school French).

This always struck me as strange... if one gets a BA in, say, chemistry
or mathematics it is not unusual for said one to become a chemist or a
mathematician... does a BA in English put you in the running to be an
Englishman?  My BA is from a very weird little school which required,
for graduation, four years of languages... two of Ancient Greek and two
of French.  (I can now almost-translate the inscriptions on drachmae and
can order from a Parisian waiter... if said waiter can wade through my
Ancient Greek-accented French)

> I took a couple of philosophy
> courses in College.  They were fun but probably better suited for
> criminal lawyers (is there any other kind?).

That I cannot agree nor disagree with; I do not know how the courses
were taught.  Keep in mind the Socratic dictum of 'The unexamined life
is not worth living' (and the corollary, 'the unlived life is not worth
examining').  I have seen instances where a poorly-taught course can do
more damage than remaining ignorant of a subject as it can turn an
otherwise-unsullied mind into that of a misologist.  A well-taught
course, on the other hand, can do very pretty things to one's thinking,
both adding to it and re-arranging the structure thereof.

> Lots of debate and
> argument, but no conclusions as far as I could tell.  Marginally more
> polite than usenet, sometimes less polite.

Just what one would expect from an arrant poopie-head... I would ask,
slyly, whether you look for conclusions in something where the process
is the telos.

DD

:-) Re: Philosophers

[Giovanni Drogo [drogo@rn.bastiani.it]]

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Mike Whiten wrote:
> > Philosophy is what scientists do in their spare time.

There was the following comparison in a SF book :

"the most expensive are experimental physicists (they use very large plants,
 the biggest computers and lot of papers, pencils and wastebaskets) ;
 then come astronomers (they use big plants, big computers, paper, pencils
 and wastebaskets) ;
 then come theoretical physicists, which use computers, paper, pencils and
 wastebaskets ;
 next come pure mathenaticians, which use paper, pencils and wastebaskets ;
 last come philosophers, who do not use the wastebasket"


----------------------------------------------------------------------
nospam@ifctr.mi.cnr.it is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.

Re: Spam--> was:Re: Philosophers

[Doug Miller]

In article <01bd2863$1a39a260$1ffd82c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>,
   "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Ooooooh ... Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar ...

Hobbes was fond of his dram ---

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert Garskof]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

I am a professional programer with about 10 years on the job experience.
I write in C++ and Java. I have no degree in CS at all, never even took
a course. My degree is in Philosophy, mostly metaphysics with some
ethics as well.

Must say I agree. A good Philosophy degree means that you were taught to
think.

Personally, I believe we make great programers.


And it pays much better than metaphysics!

-- 


/**************************************************************\
 * Robert Garskof                  | robert.garskof@snet.com  *
 * ICAS Development Team           | rgarskof@cris.com        *
 * Southern New England Telephone  |                          *
\**************************************************************/

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Robert Garskof --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 254 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Robert Garskof
n:              Garskof;Robert
org:            Southern New England Telephone
email;internet: robert.garskof@snet.com
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34CE059C.634DE881@snet.com>,
Robert Garskof  <robert.garskof@snet.com> wrote:
>I am a professional programer with about 10 years on the job experience.
>I write in C++ and Java. I have no degree in CS at all, never even took
>a course. My degree is in Philosophy, mostly metaphysics with some
>ethics as well.
>
>Must say I agree. A good Philosophy degree means that you were taught to
>think.
>
>Personally, I believe we make great programers.
>
>
>And it pays much better than metaphysics!

Say, did you ever cheat on a metaphysics exam by peering into the
soul of the person sitting next to you?

(Okay, I admit I *stole* that!)

Re: Philosophers

[Kurt Wall]

Mad Hamish wrote in message <34cd2808.10685219@newsroom.tassie.net.au>...
>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:00:26 -0700, firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>
>wrote:
>> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>you won't find one.
>
>
>Calvinball comes pretty close. <g>

Marriage comes even closer...

[deletia]

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

> > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
> earn a
> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> > 
> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
subject and
a PhD doth not a programmer make.

> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
progs
> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 
> 
> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
3
> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
has
> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.

Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
a PhD):

In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
and be absolutely useless.
If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.

Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
get more than 3 engineers
in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering
software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
that's the nature of the domain beast.
Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
programmer to be an engineer than it
is to write out the specifications "in full".

Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
willing to go back and spend 4+ years
learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
clue about numerical methods).
This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
background can learn to program
(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
think they're good at it.

Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

dogmat wrote:
> 
> docdwarf@clark.net wrote in article <6ankdf$5h8@clarknet.clark.net>...
> 
> > As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
> > believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
> > now or I get fifteen ghost points.
> 
> Well, just to quibble, I would say they were consistent (at any one time).
> Its just that
> the players had the ability to change the rules on a dime. Consistency was
> always
> a valid argument in protesting a rule. Its just that the argument never one
> because another
> rule would be invented that resolved any so-called inconsistency. It all
> made perfect sense.

Your quibble is acceptable if and only if consistency is something which
occurs at a point ('at any one time').  If one needs a line, curve, or
more complex construct in order to gauge consistency then your quibble
is quickly, quite querulously, quashed.

DD

Re: Philosophers

[Warren B. Focke]

The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> said:
>
>'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
>'natural philosophers'!
>
>(For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
>'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'.  For the aware... muse
>over the difference between 'philos sophos' and 'scire')
>

What most people call scientists, anyway.

I'll argue that a natural philosopher studies "nature", while a
scientist seeks truth through the scientific method.  Orthogonal
issues, really.  Many scientists are natural philosophers.  Appallingly
few natural philosophers are scientists.

Warren Focke
warren@wam.umd.edu

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Steve Dekorte]

In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
> It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a
> PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 

Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

---
Steve Dekorte 

Re: Philosophers

[Mad Hamish]

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:00:26 -0700, firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>
wrote:
> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>you won't find one.


Calvinball comes pretty close. <g>

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws
h_laws@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_laws@tassie.net.au

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert Garskof]

Yes.


-- 


/**************************************************************\
 * Robert Garskof                  | robert.garskof@snet.com  *
 * ICAS Development Team           | rgarskof@cris.com        *
 * Southern New England Telephone  |                          *
\**************************************************************/

Re: Philosophers

[docdwarf]

In article <34cd2808.10685219@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
Mad Hamish <h_laws@tassie.net.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:00:26 -0700, firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>
>wrote:
>> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>you won't find one.
>
>
>Calvinball comes pretty close. <g>

As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
now or I get fifteen ghost points.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Barrabazz]

That guy, Steve, hope a) he is not your superior b) he doesn't put his nose
in this NG.

I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his progs
: you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 

By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having 3
PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he has
3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
-- 

b a r r a b a z z

Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article
<6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip.net>...
> In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
> > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
earn a
> > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> 
> Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
> 
> ---
> Steve Dekorte 
> 

SmallTalk Execute files

[Thaminda Erangane Perera]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 186 bytes --]

Hello,

My name is Erangane Perera.  And I would like to know, how to make an Execute
file (.exe) from Smalltalk.  If you do please let me know.

Thanks
E-mail: Tperera@chat.carleton.ca

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Thaminda Perera --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 389 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Thaminda Perera
n:              Perera;Thaminda
email;internet: tperera@chat.carleton.ca
title:          T-Man's Site
note;quoted-printable:WWW Page: http://chat.carleton.ca/~tperera  =
	=0D=0A=
	E-mail: TPerera@chat.carleton.ca or T911T@hotmail.com=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: SmallTalk Execute files

[Dann Corbit]

Thaminda Erangane Perera wrote in message
<34CF88E5.6FD8801F@chat.carleton.ca>...
>Hello,
>
>My name is Erangane Perera.  And I would like to know, how to make an Execute
>file (.exe) from Smalltalk.  If you do please let me know.

Hello Thaminda Erangane Perera.
I would like to know how to create an annoying spam message.  You see, I don't
know how to go here:
    http://www.newbie-u.com/news/
to learn what is topical and what is not, or anything about Usenet courtesy.
I think that maybe you can help me.
--
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ ftp: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu, C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9
Try "C Programming: A Modern Approach" ISBN 0-393-96945-2
Want Software?  Algorithms?  Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <6alu5l$onm$1@owl.slip.net>, Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote:

> In comp.lang.smalltalk Joe Gwinn <gwinn@res.ray.com> wrote:
> > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to earn a
> > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> 
> Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

Yeah, I once interviewed a guy with three PhDs.  I did wonder how I was
going to interview such a person, but it turned out that more was not
better.  He was the eternal student -- knew many things, but couldn't
connect the dots, even when talking about systems he supposedly designed. 
He was the best of students, but he didn't get the job.  

I assume that he really wanted to be a professor, but couldn't find an
academic post.  And, most professors I know very much can connect the dots
in their chosen field.

Joe Gwinn

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <01bd2c45$f7ff6f40$7261b693@HP5079Q>, "dogmat"
<macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:

> > > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
> > earn a
> > > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
> > > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
> > > 
> > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
> 
> Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
> subject and a PhD doth not a programmer make.

Agree.  See previous posting as well.


> > I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
> > ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
> progs
> > : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 

Yes, I have, many times, and it didn't require any special schooling.


> > By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
> 3
> > PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
> has
> > 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
> > substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
> > fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
> > still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
> 
> Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
> a PhD):
> 
> In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
> and be absolutely useless.
> If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
> internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.

My experience has been that it's lots easier to teach an engineer
programming than to teach a programmer engineering, and the reeducated
engineer will write perfectly fine code.  

Engineers, reeducated or not, as a group tend not to be too impressed with
all the current good-programming theories and fads, which is generally a
good thing, although it does drive the software process folk to drink,
which is also a good thing.


> Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
> get more than 3 engineers
> in a room, and they'll argue forever. 

That's why we appoint a Chief Engineer.  Somebody must decide.


> ... You'll never get a engineering
> software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
> programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
> that's the nature of the domain beast.
> Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
> programmer to be an engineer than it
> is to write out the specifications "in full".

Yes, up to a point.  My experience is that engineers untrained in software
can generally get a 20,000-DSI program to work, but will most often fail
at 100,000 DSIs and above.  As the scale increases, software architecture
and design issues become more and more important, and cannot be
overwhelmed by pure engineering knowledge.  Thus, the engineer turned
programmer is necessary.

 
> Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
> willing to go back and spend 4+ years
> learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
> clue about numerical methods).
> This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
> background can learn to program
> (and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
> think they're good at it.
> 
> Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
> engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
> (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
> newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
> dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.

I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is
one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply
isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
these things on the job, but most don't.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Tim Oxler]

"dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:

>> > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
>> earn a
>> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
>> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
>> > 
>> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
>> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
>> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
>
>Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
>subject and
>a PhD doth not a programmer make.
>

Agreed.

>> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
>> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
>progs
>> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 
>> 
>> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
>3
>> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
>has
>> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
>> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
>> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
>> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
>
>Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
>a PhD):
>
>In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
>and be absolutely useless.
>If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
>internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.
>

Well, my schooling and training is on the business side.  I think that
similiar arguments could be applied to that spectrum in the form of
Business Analyst, MIS programmer, and CS programmer.

>Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
>get more than 3 engineers
>in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering
>software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
>programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
>that's the nature of the domain beast.
>Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
>programmer to be an engineer than it
>is to write out the specifications "in full".
>

[Business spectrum perspective].  I've seen other programmers that are
extremely talented, but lacked the ability to translate "Computerese"
into "Businessese", and talented Business Analysts that lacked the
ability to translate "Businessese" into "Computerese".  Without good
conduits of communication, so much time is wasted and the end product
not being what was intended.

>Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
>willing to go back and spend 4+ years
>learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
>clue about numerical methods).
>This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
>background can learn to program
>(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
>think they're good at it.
>

Agreed.
[Business spectrum perspective].   Training, and re-training.  Some
veterans learn how to write code in a certain fashion, and/or work
tasks in a certain way.  Then 10yrs go by, better programming
techniques are developed, and more efficient task processing can be
applied, but many of these people are still working and programming
like they did 10yrs ago.

>Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
>engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
>(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
>dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>

Probably for the most part true.  But then again, I should be writing
code right now instead of posting to a newsgroup :)


Tim Oxler
TEO Computer Technologies Inc.
http://www.i1.net/~troxler
http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Tim Oxler]

"dogmat" <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:

>> > > It's really very simple.  Anyone smart enough and focused enough to
>> earn a
>> > > PhD in *any* hard-core technical subject can learn programming and
>> > > computer science on the job, and is therefore a good bet. 
>> > 
>> > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
>> > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
>> > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
>
>Both points probably true and not inconsistent. Programming is a special
>subject and
>a PhD doth not a programmer make.
>

Agreed.

>> I knew another guy, PhD in mathematics. It seemed strange to me that he
>> ended as a programmer. But it really struck me when I saw some of his
>progs
>> : you ever unlocked a record that doesn't exist? 
>> 
>> By the way, my thoughts, based on experience (and I have no PhD) : Having
>3
>> PhD's warrants that one can say out loud (and probably proudly) that he
>has
>> 3 PhD's. Furthermore, directives who care more for appearance than for
>> substance tend to preffer guys with, at least, a PhD, since they fit
>> fantastically in their corporative picture. Fortunately there's always
>> still enough no-PhDed-people around to get the work done.
>
>Well, since we're taking off our gloves, I'll throw back the insult (I have
>a PhD):
>
>In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look great
>and be absolutely useless.
>If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
>internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.
>

Well, my schooling and training is on the business side.  I think that
similiar arguments could be applied to that spectrum in the form of
Business Analyst, MIS programmer, and CS programmer.

>Aside: Its comes down to requirements analysis, you might say. Sorry, but
>get more than 3 engineers
>in a room, and they'll argue forever. You'll never get a engineering
>software requirements package that is sufficiently precise for a
>programmer's needs. Blame the engineers for their lack-of-rigor? Yes, but
>that's the nature of the domain beast.
>Its easier for an engineer to write the program himself or train the
>programmer to be an engineer than it
>is to write out the specifications "in full".
>

[Business spectrum perspective].  I've seen other programmers that are
extremely talented, but lacked the ability to translate "Computerese"
into "Businessese", and talented Business Analysts that lacked the
ability to translate "Businessese" into "Computerese".  Without good
conduits of communication, so much time is wasted and the end product
not being what was intended.

>Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers would be
>willing to go back and spend 4+ years
>learning the intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a
>clue about numerical methods).
>This cannot be picked up on the job. But anyone with an engineering
>background can learn to program
>(and does, e.g., one semester of Fortran). The problem is that many of them
>think they're good at it.
>

Agreed.
[Business spectrum perspective].   Training, and re-training.  Some
veterans learn how to write code in a certain fashion, and/or work
tasks in a certain way.  Then 10yrs go by, better programming
techniques are developed, and more efficient task processing can be
applied, but many of these people are still working and programming
like they did 10yrs ago.

>Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
>engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
>(Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
>dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>

Probably for the most part true.  But then again, I should be writing
code right now instead of posting to a newsgroup :)


Tim Oxler
TEO Computer Technologies Inc.
http://www.i1.net/~troxler
http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Wayne L. Beavers]

Joe Gwinn wrote:
> 
> 

snip


> 
> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is
> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply
> isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
> these things on the job, but most don't.

I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on
Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone
dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a
COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a
COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason.

That's why we have systems programmers.

I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating
systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not
do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about
accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I
started out as an Electronic Engineering major and switched to Computer
Science in my junior year, a long time ago.

Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put
it on. For the few of us around that can still diagnose systems problems
we all have new titles now. Last time I looked I was a "Software
Engineer", according to my business cards.

-- 
Wayne L. Beavers         mailto:Wayne_Beavers@Beyond-Software.com
Beyond Software, Inc.      http://www.beyond-software.com
"Transforming Legacy Applications"

Re: SmallTalk Execute files

[Griff Lewis]

Dann Corbit wrote in message
>>Hello,
>>
>>My name is Erangane Perera.  And I would like to know, how to make an
Execute
>>file (.exe) from Smalltalk.  If you do please let me know.
>
>Hello Thaminda Erangane Perera.
>I would like to know how to create an annoying spam message.  You see, I
don't
>know how to go here:
>    http://www.newbie-u.com/news/
>to learn what is topical and what is not, or anything about Usenet
courtesy.
>I think that maybe you can help me.


Hello Dann Corbit,
Maybe you should visit:
http://www.learntobeanicerperson-andnotflamenewbies.com

to learn that flaming newbies is neither big nor clever.

Griff

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Frank A. Adrian]

Wayne L. Beavers wrote in message <34D0A9F7.4768@beyond-software.com>...
>Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>
>> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there
is
>> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
>> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
>> operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it
simply
>> isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
>> these things on the job, but most don't.
>
>I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on
>Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone
>dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a
>COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a
>COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason.
>
>That's why we have systems programmers.
>
>I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating
>systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not
>do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about
>accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I
>started out as an Electronic Engineering major and switched to Computer
>Science in my junior year, a long time ago.
>
>Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
>to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put
>it on. For the few of us around that can still diagnose systems problems
>we all have new titles now. Last time I looked I was a "Software
>Engineer", according to my business cards.

I guess I have a simple answer to people who believe that programmers SHOULD
have this or that or the other skill.  I just ask them if they're willing to
pay extra for it.  They tend to not want to.  So my question to the earlier
poster is, "How much more than the going rate for a COBOL application
program-
mer who is just a COBOL application programmer are you willing to pay for
one
who knows the physical register architecture of the IBM 3xx line and the
inter-
nals of MVS?"  And I guess we all SHOULD be omniscient, too, but I don't see
anyone willing to pay extra for that.
--
Frank A. Adrian
First DataBank
frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W)
franka@europa.com (H)
This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent
company.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[coryb]

> I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there
is
> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
> assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it
simply
> isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
> these things on the job, but most don't.

??? Maybe I'm missing the point entirely, but is the main gist of this
discussion that, say, electric engineers are a superior breed of workers
than computer scientists?  That's not the kind of thing I want to hear :)

-- 
begin 600 Have_A_Nice_Day.com
M: 2@'[ 3S1"QJ;H``K1D@^H&`\)@Z"X`B#_WTX/K58@_,O_0[-#IZ!P`B+^L
C36'BWK=HB!> PS*(%[0!S19T^K@#`,T0PXK<P>,&`MD2_,/0          
end

 

Re: Philosophers

[Steve Dekorte]

In comp.lang.smalltalk The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote:
> Mike Whiten wrote:
> > Nick Roberts wrote:
> > Philosophy is what scientists do in their spare time.

> 'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
> 'natural philosophers'!

> (For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
> 'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'. 

And scince the early 20th century, philosophy was reduced to deciding
if any given statement should be sorted into the empirical sciences or
mathematics and nothing more.

---
Steve Dekorte 

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

Steve Dekorte wrote:
> 
> In comp.lang.smalltalk The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote:
> > Mike Whiten wrote:
> > > Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > Philosophy is what scientists do in their spare time.
> 
> > 'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
> > 'natural philosophers'!
> 
> > (For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
> > 'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'.
> 
> And scince the early 20th century, philosophy was reduced to deciding
> if any given statement should be sorted into the empirical sciences or
> mathematics and nothing more.

I disagree, of course... as Wittgenstein would say, 'Compare these two
uses of the imperative: 'Raise your arm over your head!' and 'Laugh
heartily at this joke!''... or, similarly, 'Why is it that we do not
look at a child and say 'How wonderful!  Today he hoped, for the first
time!'...

... or, as the Existentialists would say, 'Who cares?  If I can do the
time then I'll do the crime.'

DD

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

Warren B. Focke wrote:
> 
> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> said:
> >
> >'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
> >'natural philosophers'!
> >
> >(For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
> >'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'.  For the aware... muse
> >over the difference between 'philos sophos' and 'scire')
> >
> 
> What most people call scientists, anyway.
> 
> I'll argue that a natural philosopher studies "nature", while a
> scientist seeks truth through the scientific method.

You realise, of course, this assumes both that there is 'truth' and that
said 'truth' can be found via the scientific method... since
reproducible results are the hallmark of scientific method this makes
'random truth' an imposibility.

(Not that this *means* anything, of course... but don't it sure sound
purty?)

> Orthogonal issues, really.

Oh, so you come here with... axes to grind?

>  Many scientists are natural philosophers.
>  Appallingly few natural philosophers are scientists.

I haven't met enough of either to be able to generate such a conclusion.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Robert S. White]

In article <gwinn-2901981005320001@dh5152093.res.ray.com>, gwinn@res.ray.com 
says...

... snipped (good stuff) ...

>> Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm an
>> engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most programmers.
>> (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>> newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the majority of
>> dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>
>I don't expect programmers to learn engineering anytime soon, but there is
>one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant of
>assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
>operating systems, etc.  This ignorance causes serious problems; it simply
>isn't enough to know only the surface of <favorite language>.  Some learn
>these things on the job, but most don't.

  Wow!  I may have disagreed with some of you past postings Joe, but
this one I completely agree with.  It is much much easier to teach or
to self-instruct a competent engineer the basic principles of 
software engineering (not just _programming_).  Engineers _must_
constantly continue to read and learn - once you stop you are
instant management material (the Dilbert Principal).  Successful
product teams tend to have a good mixture of skills, including
new CS grads, number crunching analysts, Computer Engineers and
reformed EE or ME engineers doing SWE along with the token current
EE and ME.  It is amazing how much is in the software and how little
is in the hardware (reoccurring effort) for most products these days.
_____________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White         -- An embedded systems software engineer
e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ):  net mcleodusa shift2 r white

Re: Philosophers

[jim]

docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
> In article <34cd2808.10685219@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
> Mad Hamish <h_laws@tassie.net.au> wrote:
> >On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:00:26 -0700, firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>
> >wrote:
> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
> >>you won't find one.
> >
> >
> >Calvinball comes pretty close. <g>
> 
> As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
> believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
> now or I get fifteen ghost points.

Doesn't count. I had my fingers crossed.

jim
--
j.cameron@physiology.ucl.ac.uk | http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/~jim/
-This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence.

Re: Philosophers

[Samuel Mize]

In article <34D1CE66.3B16@physiology.ucl.ac.uk>,
jim  <j.cameron@physiology.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
>> In article <34cd2808.10685219@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
>> Mad Hamish <h_laws@tassie.net.au> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:00:26 -0700, firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>> >>you won't find one.
>> >
>> >
>> >Calvinball comes pretty close. <g>
>> 
>> As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.

I think he established that you can't use the same rule twice.

This is a pretty good model of some DoD/management decision methods.
(SOME, not all.)


>j.cameron@physiology.ucl.ac.uk | http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/~jim/
>-This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence.

Does that sig refer to Calvinball, Ada or management?  Answer: yes.

Best,
Sam Mize

-- 
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
Personal net account - die gedanken sind frei

Re: Philosophers

[docdwarf]

In article <34D1CE66.3B16@physiology.ucl.ac.uk>,
jim  <j.cameron@physiology.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>docdwarf@clark.net wrote:
>> In article <34cd2808.10685219@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
>> Mad Hamish <h_laws@tassie.net.au> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:00:26 -0700, firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>> >>you won't find one.
>> >
>> >
>> >Calvinball comes pretty close. <g>
>> 
>> As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
>> believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
>> now or I get fifteen ghost points.
>
>Doesn't count. I had my fingers crossed.

Does *so* count; you had both feet on the ground.

DD

Re: Philosophers

[suzie]

> >> As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
> >> believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
> >> now or I get fifteen ghost points.
> >
> >Doesn't count. I had my fingers crossed.
> 
> Does *so* count; you had both feet on the ground.
> 
> DD
will somebody just get on with singing the song already!!!! It was
snowing here, so someone besides me gets to sing it......

Re: Philosophers

[docdwarf]

In article <34D1F0E5.69E8@dhfs.state.wisconsin.unitedstates>,
suzie  <higgish@dhfs.state.wisconsin.unitedstates> wrote:
>> >> As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
>> >> believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
>> >> now or I get fifteen ghost points.
>> >
>> >Doesn't count. I had my fingers crossed.
>> 
>> Does *so* count; you had both feet on the ground.
>> 
>> DD
>will somebody just get on with singing the song already!!!! It was
>snowing here, so someone besides me gets to sing it......

You had snow?  That gives me *twenty* ghost points, two bases and a free
throw... you, on the other hand, can choose the song-partner of your
choice and have to flip a coin to see who gets lead and who gets harmony.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Patricia Shanahan]

Robert S. White wrote:
[SNIP!]
>   Wow!  I may have disagreed with some of you past postings Joe, but
> this one I completely agree with.  It is much much easier to teach or
> to self-instruct a competent engineer the basic principles of
> software engineering (not just _programming_).  Engineers _must_
> constantly continue to read and learn - once you stop you are
> instant management material (the Dilbert Principal).
...

Programmers don't constantly read and learn? I cannot remember when I
last did ANY programming task that I could have completed with only
the skills I had when I started on my first programming job.

Re: Philosophers

[Martin Richardson]

>>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>> >>you won't find one.
>>> >
>>> >
Mornington Crescent

Martin Richardson              martinr@thequiff.demon.co.uk
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Welcome to the Quiff (~

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Larry Wiggins]

the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to
notice.  That is the fact that most programmers are required by their
college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus,
linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability....as
well as physics and chemistry....so there for, many programmer's with an
actual degree will do well, possibly better, because they will have been
formally taught these subject as well as structured programs....

Re: Philosophers

[Jeff York]

Martin Richardson <martinr@thequiff.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>>> >>you won't find one.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>Mornington Crescent
>
Not so..

Mornington Crescent has rules.  It's just that nobody actually knows
what they are..  :)

--
Jeff.
jeff@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)

... There's pleasure sure in being mad
    That none but madmen know...
                               Dryden

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Paul Van Bellinghen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --]

>  Successful
> product teams tend to have a good mixture of skills, including
> new CS grads, number crunching analysts, Computer Engineers and
> reformed EE or ME engineers doing SWE along with the token current
> EE and ME.  It is amazing how much is in the software and how little
> is in the hardware (reoccurring effort) for most products these days.

Reading this got me thinking about the people I've worked with over the past 23
years that I've been in this field (I am also an embedded SE with a  EE degree). I
recall that in the 70s when CS majors were rare in schools, the SEs usually came
from  Math, Physics,  or EE scholastic backgrounds. In the 80s, most were CS
majors. Anyway, what I found was that the educational background rarely mapped to
the success an SE had when working in the "Field". The "success correlation" had
more to do with how well the individual could learn and adapt to the project at
hand and the company's way of doing things. It seems that regardless of
educational background, an SE is constantly in a position where he/she must learn
new material -  whether software or system related. Projects and languages are
forever changing - even within the same company. I agree that an SE that stops
learning is technically dead (like Engineers turned managers who become schedule
experts). For an experienced SE, learning a new language is a snap - its just part
of the job. That's why when I 'm out on job interviews,  I laugh at these managers
who worry so much about how many years of experience I have had in a specific
language. That should be the least of their concern.

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Paul  Van Bellinghen --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 332 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Paul  Van Bellinghen
n:              Van Bellinghen;Paul 
org:            Lockheed Martin Fairchild
email;internet: pvanbell@mhv.net
title:          Staff Analyst
note:           WebPage: www.mhv.net/~pvanbell
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Nick Roberts]

Paul Van Bellinghen <pvanbell@mhv.net> wrote in article
<34D3A4A4.9E58315C@mhv.net>...
[...]
>           For an experienced SE, learning a new language is a snap - its
just part
> of the job. That's why when I 'm out on job interviews,  I laugh at these
managers
> who worry so much about how many years of experience I have had in a
specific
> language. That should be the least of their concern.
> 

Hear hear!  I'm going to frame Paul's post and put it up on the wall!

-- 

== Nick Roberts ================================================
== Croydon, UK                       ===========================
==                                              ================
== Proprietor, ThoughtWing Software                   ==========
== Independent Software Development Consultant            ======
== Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com                              ====
== Voicemail & Fax +44 181-405 1124                          ===
==                                                            ==
==           I live not in myself, but I become               ==
===          Portion of that around me; and to me             ==
====         High mountains are a feeling, but the hum        ==
=======      Of human cities torture.
===========                             -- Byron [Childe Harold]

Re: Philosophers

[Martin Richardson]

In article <34d31f59.1398864666@news.u-net.com>, Jeff York
>>>>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>>>> >>you won't find one.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>Mornington Crescent
>>
>Not so..
>
>Mornington Crescent has rules.  It's just that nobody actually knows
>what they are..  :)
>
That's because it's against the rules to know.

Martin Richardson              martinr@thequiff.demon.co.uk
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Welcome to the Quiff (~

Re: Philosophers

[Scott Adams]

Okay...what about marriage than...the only rule I can point to is the
undocumented, Greater Fool Theorem (GFT) as applied to nuptuality says that the
spuse must have found one

The Goobers wrote:

> dogmat wrote:
> >
> > docdwarf@clark.net wrote in article <6ankdf$5h8@clarknet.clark.net>...
> >
> > > As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
> > > believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
> > > now or I get fifteen ghost points.
> >
> > Well, just to quibble, I would say they were consistent (at any one time).
> > Its just that
> > the players had the ability to change the rules on a dime. Consistency was
> > always
> > a valid argument in protesting a rule. Its just that the argument never one
> > because another
> > rule would be invented that resolved any so-called inconsistency. It all
> > made perfect sense.
>
> Your quibble is acceptable if and only if consistency is something which
> occurs at a point ('at any one time').  If one needs a line, curve, or
> more complex construct in order to gauge consistency then your quibble
> is quickly, quite querulously, quashed.
>
> DD



--
_______________________________________________________
 Best Information Technology Services (BITS)
    Scott Adams, President
http://www.b-it-s.com ~or~ mailto:sadams9@ix.netcom.com
_______________________________________________________

Re: This thread has drifted miles from its subject line.

[Wes Groleau]

onm$1@owl.slip.net> <01bd2c2a$69b107a0$9f684bc2@xzSys> <01bd2c45$f7ff6f40$7261b693@HP5079Q> <gwinn-2901981005320001@dh5152093.res.ray.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant 
> of assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> operating systems, etc.  

Sure, I've met some that don't know enough about such things.
But I've had more heartache with those that know more than 
the current task needs and spend money using that knowledge 
to add complexity to the code.

What I REALLY hate is when I catch myself doing that!   :-)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Raytheon Systems Company, Fort Wayne, IN USA
                wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com
     Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!
      All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either
   Raytheon Systems Company or the United States government.
  Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing!
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael C. Kasten]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 
> In article <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>,
> Ross Klatte <klatte@spartan.com> wrote:
> >The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person
> >has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it
> >to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of
> >any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.
> 
> Which really means that the Ph. D. should perhaps be given a management
> position or some other form of leadership; not necessarily a role
> involving the direct construction of the product.

Not at all.  Getting a PhD does not usually involve any training or
background in supervision, planning, budgeting, or company politics.
Instead, it involves immersion in a narrow and esoteric discipline
to the virtual exclusion of all other areas of knowledge.  A leader
or manager needs a completely different skill set and a broader
outlook.

That's not to say that a PhD could not successful lead others or
manage a project -- merely that one thing does not imply the other.

I don't know about other disciplines, but in biomedical sciences
(where I got my PhD), graduate students are a source of cheap
skilled labor for their mentors.  Once they graduate, they are
discarded into a shrinking labor market which has little use for
them.  Some of them wind up programming computers for a living.

> The ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project doesn't necessarily
> translate to good software development. In principle, you could work for
> several years on something whose components can't be tested until
> it's all completed. :)

If a graduate student spends years on a project which eventually
fails, he or she probably won't *get* the PhD.  He'll get a Master's
degree as a consolation prize and be shown the door.
 
Michael C. Kasten	mck9@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/cobol/cobol.html

Re: Philosophers

[Dave Tholen]

Robert Garskof writes:

> Sounds like Fizbin.

That's the card game James T. Kirk taught the gangsters working for
Kracko, when he needed a diversion to help them gain the upper hand
on an escape strategy in "A Piece of the Action".  "Don't worry boss;
they can't do nothin' 'til they quit sparklin'."

Except on Tuesday.

Re: Philosophers

[Pat O'Connell]

Martin Richardson wrote:
> 
> In article <34d31f59.1398864666@news.u-net.com>, Jeff York
> >>>>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
> >>>>> >>you won't find one.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>Mornington Crescent
> >>
> >Not so..
> >
> >Mornington Crescent has rules.  It's just that nobody actually knows
> >what they are..  :)
> >
> That's because it's against the rules to know.

Sounds like Calvinball, where you make up the rules as you
play--typically with a stuffed tiger named Hobbes.

-- 
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, 
Kill nothing but vandals...

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <01bd2c3c$6726d520$8101b8c7@MIS-RKW95.spartan.com>,
Ross Klatte <klatte@spartan.com> wrote:
>The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person 
>has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it 
>to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of 
>any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.  

Which really means that the Ph. D. should perhaps be given a management
position or some other form of leadership; not necessarily a role
involving the direct construction of the product.

The ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project doesn't necessarily
translate to good software development. In principle, you could work for
several years on something whose components can't be tested until
it's all completed. :)

A good software project survives some turn-around of people. You don't
need the same engineers to be on it from start to finish. Some
engineers are better at the outset of a project, others are better at
tying it up.

Re: Philosophers

[Eddie Armstrong]

Martin Richardson wrote in message ...
>In article <34d31f59.1398864666@news.u-net.com>, Jeff York
>>>>>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>>>>> >>you won't find one.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>Mornington Crescent
>>>
>>Not so..
>>
>>Mornington Crescent has rules.  It's just that nobody actually knows
>>what they are..  :)
>>
>That's because it's against the rules to know.
>

In my expereince, a full understanding of the rules would mean:

a)very little chance of winning, as you'd be too confused to play,
b)the ability to win in one move, making the game extremely short,
c)you're a smartarse who should stick to chess!!

Re: Philosophers

[Jeff York]

Martin Richardson <martinr@thequiff.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <34d31f59.1398864666@news.u-net.com>, Jeff York
>>>>>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>>>>> >>you won't find one.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>Mornington Crescent
>>>
>>Not so..
>>
>>Mornington Crescent has rules.  It's just that nobody actually knows
>>what they are..  :)
>>
>That's because it's against the rules to know.

But if it's against the rules to know,  you have to know the rule to
know not to know the rules,  which is paradoxical..  

I think...  :)

--
Jeff.
jeff@jakfield.xu-netx.com  (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)

... There's pleasure sure in being mad
    That none but madmen know...
                               Dryden

Re: Philosophers

[Robert Garskof]

Sounds like Fizbin.

-- 


/**************************************************************\
 * Robert Garskof                  | robert.garskof@snet.com  *
 * ICAS Development Team           | rgarskof@cris.com        *
 * Southern New England Telephone  |                          *
\**************************************************************/

Re: Philosophers

[Nyk Tarr]

Once upon a time in the land of alt.games.mornington.cresent,
Eddie Armstrong wrote:

> Martin Richardson wrote in message ...
>>In article <34d31f59.1398864666@news.u-net.com>, Jeff York
>>>>>>> >> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>>>>>> >>you won't find one.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>Mornington Crescent
>>>>
>>>Not so..
>>>
>>>Mornington Crescent has rules.  It's just that nobody actually knows
>>>what they are..  :)
>>>
>>That's because it's against the rules to know.
>>

> In my expereince, a full understanding of the rules would mean:

> a)very little chance of winning, as you'd be too confused to play,

Only if you try to play all the rules at once.

> b)the ability to win in one move, making the game extremely short,

Impossible, unless you're playing the Fool's Gold variant popular in
the late 1970's.

> c)you're a smartarse who should stick to chess!!

But chess is a /simple/ game. Anybody fancy 'Go'?


Nyk
--
   ____  _
   /__   _]|  http://www.tomobiki.demon.co.uk
  / \/  |_ | mailto: Nyk@tomobiki.demon.co.uk              Team AMIGA
 /  /\   _)|  Find me on usenet: alt.games.mornington.cresent

Someone told me he's collecting cat's beards and plans to implant
them in siberian huskies suffering from hair-loss

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[GLE]

Wayne L. Beavers wrote:
> I disagree. There really is no reason for a COBOL programmer working on
> Accounts Payable applications to know how to shoot a 64 meg stand alone
> dump of an MVS/ESA system in a hard loop or disabled wait. Why would a
> COBOL programmer be interested in analyzing a GTF trace? Why would a
> COBOL programmer examine CCW chains? No reason.
...
> I know a fair amount about the internals of MVS and VM operating
> systems. I can shoot dumps and trace tables well enough. What I can not
> do is design business applications. I don't know much at all about
> accounting, manufacturing, transportation, retail, finance, etc. I
...
> Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
> to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put

Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you
cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can tunefs, but you can't tune a fish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- spammers, add us to your list:
  root@localhost
  postmaster@localhost
  webmaster@localhost
  abuse@localhost
  askbill@microsoft.com
  president@whitehouse.org

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG **]

In <34D713F0.510@Go.To.Hell>, GLE:

[Snip...]
 
|> Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you
|> cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct.

[Snip...]

Joining "Philosphers/Y2K/Pay" threads and such in that trite paraphrase:

      Those Ignorant of History Are Doomed to Repeat It...       :)

Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens)     ** IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO **

1. As antispam, I have completely disabled my "adam" email account.
2. Please vent inconvenience at Cyberpromo and their Satanic spawn.
3. You might try finding (wyrd) at ti, dotted with com. NO UCE/UBE.
4. I detest UCE/UBE. I support CAUCE; http://www.cauce.org HR 1748.

Standard Disclaimer: My opinions alone and not Raytheon TI Systems.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[The Goobers]

GLE wrote:
> 
> Wayne L. Beavers wrote:
[buncha snippage everywhere]
> ...
> > Of course today the average systems programmer no longer has the skills
> > to shoot stand alone dumps. They just call IBM and get the fix and put
> 
> Today the average systems programmer knowns nothing of the dinosaurs you
> cite, and we should be glad they are becoming extinct.

I know that *I* am glad that they are dieing out... because then I, with
only my half-assed abilities in those arcana, can demand More Money for
my skills.


... so tell us, how many years of working in a mainframe shop shooting
prod CICS dumps so that the airline which employs you can get the region
back up so the 'girls' can take the orders for the tickets which would
fill the seats in the airplanes with paying customers who make your
paycheck possible did it take you to arrive at this stunning conclusion?

DD

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

dogmat wrote:
> 
> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> wrote in article
> <34CFDD2F.4621@erols.com>...
> > Your quibble is acceptable if and only if consistency is something which
> > occurs at a point ('at any one time').  If one needs a line, curve, or
> > more complex construct in order to gauge consistency then your quibble
> > is quickly, quite querulously, quashed.
> >
> > DD
> >
> If consistency is something which occurs at a point, isn't a line or curve
> just a collection of
> points, so consistency occurs along the curve as well?

This is what I was trying to demonstrate; if consistency occurs at a
point, if one can speak of the 'consistency' of something which is, by
definition, discontinuous (a point is that which has no part, as Euclid
tells us) then the argument is valid and holds not only for points but
for collections of points (lines and curves) as well.  If one needs more
than one instance of discontinuity (point) to demonstrate inconsistency
then 'more than one point' also, by definition, defines at least a line,
if not a curve.


> Define X as the
> domain space of the
> "variables" of the game. Define H as the set of rules which constrain the
> variables X (H size <= X size).
> Therefore, the "trajectory" of the game must be a curve in the space of X
> such that H is satisfied.
> A rule change would certainly render the curve as first-order discontinous.
> However, it might be
> zeroth-order continuous, i.e., no step-change.
> 
> OTOH, Calvinball had the ability to change the domain space itself, so the
> game jumps from one domain
> space to another.

But Calvinball *is* limited in domain-space by the panels of the strip;
if it goes beyond those it then becomes (Heaven forbid)... Nancyball or
MaryWorthball.

> The question is whether or not this jump is continuous or
> not. To study this, we would
> have to define Xsuper as the union of all the possible domain spaces, and
> look at the trajectory in Xsuper.
> And it is quite possible that Xsuper does not exist, as certain rule
> changes rendered the previous domain
> invalid.

You mean... FamilyCircusball?  Aaiiieeeeeee!

> 
> Hmm. I withdraw my previous assertion. Perhaps we should pass this problem
> along to the game theorists.
> Now what newsgroup is that?

Game theorists do not have a newsgroup, they are all busy planning tours
to Las Vegas.

DD

Re: Philosophers

[Warren B. Focke]

The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> said:
>Warren B. Focke wrote:
>> I'll argue that a natural philosopher studies "nature", while a
>> scientist seeks truth through the scientific method.
>
>You realise, of course, this assumes both that there is 'truth' and that
>said 'truth' can be found via the scientific method... since

Indeed.  
Loth as I am to continue a subthread that has drifted so far
off topic, thank you for catching me in a common error.

Truth has nothing to do with it.  It's about developing theories that
successfully predict experimental results.  One might find the truth
through such methods, but could never know (through those methods) that
one had done so.

Warren Focke

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

Warren B. Focke wrote:
> 
> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> said:
> >Warren B. Focke wrote:
> >> I'll argue that a natural philosopher studies "nature", while a
> >> scientist seeks truth through the scientific method.
> >
> >You realise, of course, this assumes both that there is 'truth' and that
> >said 'truth' can be found via the scientific method... since
> 
> Indeed.
> Loth as I am to continue a subthread that has drifted so far
> off topic, thank you for catching me in a common error.

I caught no error, I merely pointed out an assumption or two... nothin'
special, truly.

> 
> Truth has nothing to do with it.  It's about developing theories that
> successfully predict experimental results.  One might find the truth
> through such methods, but could never know (through those methods) that
> one had done so.

For a 'simple' science... say, biology, it might be argued that the
'truth' is empirically verified in the laboratory through mechanisms
which, when independently implemented, generate reproducible results. 
('See?  The crew in Bombay did it, too, and *they* got one with two
heads!  Now that we've settled that let's all go out for a beer.')

For a 'not-so-simple' science... astrophysics or quantum mechanics, the
'big-big-big' or 'tiny-tiny-tiny' sciences... 'truth' lies more in the
generating of equations to describe phenomena.

These are, of course, *very* simplistic summations of *very* complex
fields... so I wonder if I have spoken... truth.

DD

Re: This thread has drifted miles from its subject line.

[Paul Osborn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1351 bytes --]

Wes Groleau wrote:

> onm$1@owl.slip.net> <01bd2c2a$69b107a0$9f684bc2@xzSys> <01bd2c45$f7ff6f40$7261b693@HP5079Q> <gwinn-2901981005320001@dh5152093.res.ray.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> > one big problem I do have with most programmers -- they are ignorant
> > of assembly code and the internals of generated code, runtime systems,
> > operating systems, etc.
>
> Sure, I've met some that don't know enough about such things.
> But I've had more heartache with those that know more than
> the current task needs and spend money using that knowledge
> to add complexity to the code.

Or when they use their "knowledge of assembly code and internals of generated code" as a club to demonstrate their "superiority."

>
>
> What I REALLY hate is when I catch myself doing that!   :-)
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Wes Groleau, Raytheon Systems Company, Fort Wayne, IN USA
>                 wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com
>      Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!
>       All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either
>    Raytheon Systems Company or the United States government.
>   Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------



[-- Attachment #2: Card for Paul Osborn --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 382 bytes --]

begin:          vcard
fn:             Paul Osborn
n:              Osborn;Paul
org:            Menlo Software
adr:            744 College Avenue;;;Menlo Park;CA;94025-5204;US
email;internet: posborn@menlosoftware.com
title:          Founder
tel;work:       650.324.1286
tel;fax:        650.324.1287
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard

Re: Philosophers

[dogmat]

The Goobers wrote in message <34DA489E.6226@erols.com>...

>For a 'simple' science... say, biology, it might be argued that the
>'truth' is empirically verified in the laboratory through mechanisms
>which, when independently implemented, generate reproducible results.
>('See?  The crew in Bombay did it, too, and *they* got one with two
>heads!  Now that we've settled that let's all go out for a beer.')
>
>For a 'not-so-simple' science... astrophysics or quantum mechanics, the
>'big-big-big' or 'tiny-tiny-tiny' sciences... 'truth' lies more in the
>generating of equations to describe phenomena.


Very shaky definition of "truth", even with the quotation marks. The
scientific method does not provide truth. All it can provide are negatives,
i.e., one hypothesis or theory is definitely not true, while another simply
cannot be proven false. At some point in any field, the theory is "good
enough" and we can move on. But you can bet that any theory will eventually
be proven "wrong", and all are incomplete.

Re: Philosophers

[Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG **]

In <6bco4k$1or@periodic.eng.umd.edu>, Warren B. Focke:

[Snip...]

|> Loth as I am to continue a subthread that has drifted so far

I apologize myself, but having something to add...   :)

[Snip...]

|> Truth has nothing to do with it.  It's about developing theories that
|> successfully predict experimental results.  One might find the truth
|> through such methods, but could never know (through those methods) that
|> one had done so.

[Snip...]

When I was taking programming classes (eons ago :) ) we were required to
put time into "lab" assignments. I found that at first ironic, as I came
to that study mostly to ease my toiling at tedious computations in other
classes of chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. To call a deterministic
system like a computer program a "lab" seemed at first simplistic. After
a few times tearing my hair out over these DWIMNWIS (Do What I Mean, Not
What I Say) codes, I begin to relearn that subtle distinction between an
insight and truth. My insight about what some program *should* do had at
best a partial relation to what it *would* do in truth. Sometimes I just
had not a clue why a code worked at all (and especially when working the
codes of others), and often took their validity on--for lack of a better
word--faith as demonstrated in its *utility* in the real world. Facing a
deadline of the class project (or later a system port) at 2:30 AM, I was
the humbled seeker of completeness, rather than truth.    :)

The "dance" of truth, faith, reality, politics, and experience was quite
eloquently expressed in the movie "Contact" for me. The shock that we're
not the center of this world, and that intelligence is often embedded in
apparently chaotic phenomena, seems eternally human. Digital technology,
such as networks, cryptology, OLAP/Imaging, and artificial intelligence,
for a few, feature prominently in the film. They're tools of insight but
should not be abused for *truth*. It is our human insecurities and egos,
especially expressed in politics (including religious fanaticism), which
obscure the pursuit of truth. And as this story demonstrates, you cannot
use the tools of the skeptic to "prove" *experience* (observations) that
these same tools suggest or even "provide" you later. Often your hardest
battle is not *personal* but rather *political* in both the discovery as
well as the postfacto interpretation of "truth" or reality.

Sorry for the off topic rant, but I believe the creative experience that
coding offers is art imitating life and illustrating a paradox: skeptics
are the only *realistic* truth seekers alive.    :)

And if you haven't, see "Contact" and really derail this thread.   :)

Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens)     ** IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO **

1. As antispam, I have completely disabled my "adam" email account.
2. Please vent inconvenience at Cyberpromo and their Satanic spawn.
3. You might try finding (wyrd) at ti, dotted with com. NO UCE/UBE.
4. I detest UCE/UBE. I support CAUCE; http://www.cauce.org HR 1748.

Standard Disclaimer: My opinions alone and not Raytheon TI Systems.

Re: Philosophers

[docdwarf]

In article <6bf9b7$cf8$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com>, dogmat <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:
>The Goobers wrote in message <34DA489E.6226@erols.com>...
>
>>For a 'simple' science... say, biology, it might be argued that the
>>'truth' is empirically verified in the laboratory through mechanisms
>>which, when independently implemented, generate reproducible results.
>>('See?  The crew in Bombay did it, too, and *they* got one with two
>>heads!  Now that we've settled that let's all go out for a beer.')
>>
>>For a 'not-so-simple' science... astrophysics or quantum mechanics, the
>>'big-big-big' or 'tiny-tiny-tiny' sciences... 'truth' lies more in the
>>generating of equations to describe phenomena.
>
>
>Very shaky definition of "truth", even with the quotation marks.

That is why the ''s were used... 'quid est veritas' has been asked at
other times and in other places, of course.

>The
>scientific method does not provide truth.

Then permit me to ask... what *is* truth?

>All it can provide are negatives,
>i.e., one hypothesis or theory is definitely not true, while another simply
>cannot be proven false.

Oh, *come* now... the scientific method provides a bit more than that, I
believe.  Simple example: given a quantity of hydrochloric acid of a known
concentration and a quantity of sodium hydroxide of a known concentration
the scientific method has generated the formula which will tell you how
much water, salt and heat has been produced *every other time* the same
quantites have been combined, give or take a little (margin of error).
This may not be 'truth', granted.. but are you willing to bet a week's pay
that were we to do it the result would be otherwise?

I agree we are told what this combining will not produce... tapioca
pudding, say, or a Montgomery Ward bench-grinder... but we are also told
what it pretty well likely *will* produce, based on previous
experiments... reproducibility of results is the core.

> At some point in any field, the theory is "good
>enough" and we can move on. 

As Wittgenstein said, 'the bridge must not fall down'.

>But you can bet that any theory will eventually
>be proven "wrong", and all are incomplete.

... including *that* one?  Goedel cuts both ways!

DD

Re: Philosophers

[dogmat]

ocdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bfbg6$r68@clarknet.clark.net>...
>>The scientific method does not provide truth.
>
>Then permit me to ask... what *is* truth?

You are permitted to ask. Just don't expect a completely satisfactory answer
that doesn't lead to other questions. The best thing I've read on the
subject is "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig. He
tackles the question: "Is truth relative or absolute?" Basically, he rejects
the question and defines "quality" instead. Quality is absolute, and truth
is a relative view of quality. Now what is quality? Still a tough question
(and a great book to deal with it), but at least the relative/absolute
problem has gone away.

>
>>All it can provide are negatives,
>>i.e., one hypothesis or theory is definitely not true, while another
simply cannot be proven false.
>
>Oh, *come* now... the scientific method provides a bit more than that, I
>believe.  Simple example: given a quantity of hydrochloric acid of a known
>concentration and a quantity of sodium hydroxide of a known concentration
>the scientific method has generated the formula which will tell you how
>much water, salt and heat has been produced *every other time* the same
>quantites have been combined, give or take a little (margin of error).
>This may not be 'truth', granted.. but are you willing to bet a week's pay
>that were we to do it the result would be otherwise?

Point taken, however there still is no theory which proves the truth of
this. All we have is a simplified model of atoms and reactions which happens
to match our experience "well enough to date". Naturally, I would not bet my
paycheck against the theory. Its just that theory isn't "truth", whatever
that is. And just because the theory works well enough, doesn't mean that
tomorrow a better theory will not come along that models the data better,
explains the physics better, and proves the old theory wrong.

OTOH, I have argued your point very strongly against the oxymoronic
"Scientific Creationists". Yes, evolution is "just a theory". But it is a
theory that is also fact. So it depends whether or not we want to argue
practical stuff and move on, or play semantics.

>>But you can bet that any theory will eventually
>>be proven "wrong", and all are incomplete.
>
>... including *that* one?  Goedel cuts both ways!

Which one are you referring to by *that*? Godel's theory? I've forgotten
what Godel's theory had to say about Godel's theory. Yes, its "true" but
incomplete?

Re: Philosophers

[docdwarf]

In article <6bfgkl$qn1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com>, dogmat <macdonaldrj@bv.com> wrote:
>ocdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bfbg6$r68@clarknet.clark.net>...
>>>The scientific method does not provide truth.
>>
>>Then permit me to ask... what *is* truth?
>
>You are permitted to ask. Just don't expect a completely satisfactory answer
>that doesn't lead to other questions.

Blessed is he who expects nothing, he will rarely be disappointed.

>The best thing I've read on the
>subject is "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig. He
>tackles the question: "Is truth relative or absolute?" Basically, he rejects
>the question and defines "quality" instead. Quality is absolute, and truth
>is a relative view of quality. Now what is quality? Still a tough question
>(and a great book to deal with it), but at least the relative/absolute
>problem has gone away.

Hmmmm... this, obviously, is confusing.  Pirsig 'rejects' the question of
truth... does that mean he rejects truth, the question or his ability to
deal with the question?  As for substituting 'quality' for 'truth' (or not
substituting but making 'truth' a subset of 'quality')... bah.  Call it
camembert, call it cheddar... the question remains, what is cheese?

>
>>
>>>All it can provide are negatives,
>>>i.e., one hypothesis or theory is definitely not true, while another
>simply cannot be proven false.
>>
>>Oh, *come* now... the scientific method provides a bit more than that, I
>>believe.  Simple example: given a quantity of hydrochloric acid of a known
>>concentration and a quantity of sodium hydroxide of a known concentration
>>the scientific method has generated the formula which will tell you how
>>much water, salt and heat has been produced *every other time* the same
>>quantites have been combined, give or take a little (margin of error).
>>This may not be 'truth', granted.. but are you willing to bet a week's pay
>>that were we to do it the result would be otherwise?
>
>Point taken, however there still is no theory which proves the truth of
>this.

Unless you are positing that truth must be proven by theory then I fail to
see the relevance of this observation... it also opens up the nasty can of
worms of 'what constitutes a proof?'

>All we have is a simplified model of atoms and reactions which happens
>to match our experience "well enough to date".

And this is not 'truth' because... ?

>Naturally, I would not bet my paycheck against the theory.

Damnation... and I was hoping to eat at Sizzler's tonight on your nickel,
too!  

>Its just that theory isn't "truth", whatever
>that is.

Ding ding ding... I *must* call you on this; if you cannot say what
'truth' is then I have to ask how you determine what it is not... can't
have one without the other, last I looked.

>And just because the theory works well enough, doesn't mean that
>tomorrow a better theory will not come along that models the data better,
>explains the physics better, and proves the old theory wrong.

When tomorrow comes one deals with tomorrow... as for today, Be Here Now
(and bet a paycheck or two while you're at it).

>
>OTOH, I have argued your point very strongly against the oxymoronic
>"Scientific Creationists". Yes, evolution is "just a theory". But it is a
>theory that is also fact.

Ummmm.... I would question this 'theory which is also a fact' thingie.
Yes, we can notice the change in finch-beaks or moth-spots over a few
generations on the Galapagos or in London... but to extrapolate that from
amoeba to orangutan is a wee bit of a leap (and a few Geological Ages
longer, too)

>So it depends whether or not we want to argue
>practical stuff and move on, or play semantics.

One does not rule out the other, I believe, as I attempted to demonstrate
with an acid, a base, some water, salt and heat.

>
>>>But you can bet that any theory will eventually
>>>be proven "wrong", and all are incomplete.
>>
>>... including *that* one?  Goedel cuts both ways!
>
>Which one are you referring to by *that*?

The 'that' is 'any theory will eventually be proven 'wrong', and all are
incomplete'... what happens when *that* theory is proven wrong/incomplete?
Similarly: 'No generalisation is worth a damn, including this one' or
'Never believe anything you read on the UseNet, including this statement'
or the old chestnut 'I speak nothing but lies and I am lieing right now'.

... or, to refer back to Persig, 'All things are relative... and I can say
this *absolutely*!'

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[cyanide]

>  But, there are over a dozen computer books out there.

er... have I missed something?

Oliver White
Lose the "stopspam" bit to mail me back.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[cyanide]

> > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm
> an
> > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most
> programmers.
> > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
> > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the
> majority of
> > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.

Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming
is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163
Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*).

Oliver White.
Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing.

*TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself.

**TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[cyanide]

> In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look
> great
> and be absolutely useless.
> If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
> internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.

Ok, well what do you say to a student like me, who chose to do Software
Engineering as a degree? (hehe) They do go on about this Barry Boeme guy
like he solved this divide 20 years ago...

Oliver White.

Remove "stopspam" from the email to write me back personaly.

Re: Philosophers

[The Goobers]

cyanide wrote:
> 
> > As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
> > believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry'
> > song
> > now or I get fifteen ghost points.
> 
> Hey wow, I had that strip up on my wall! Now who's up for programming
> it? (not a flame, I'm serious!)
> 

I'll pass on that'un... didn't you know that I am a COBOL-jockey? 
Businesses usually seek ordered results, not random ones.

DD

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

cyanide wrote in message <34DF23BE.156895CB@stopspamiinet.net.au>...
>> > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm
>> an
>> > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most
>> programmers.
>> > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
>> > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the
>> majority of
>> > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>
>Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming
>is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163
>Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*).
>
>Oliver White.
>Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing.
>
>*TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself.
>
>**TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".


TIC aside, if you're a 1st year writing this, you ain't your ordinary 1st
year.
My advice is not to expect your course work to teach you everything you need
to know.
You'll still have to study independently. Do that and you'll get your job
with Boeing.

Re: Back to the topic of CS students. (was Re: Philosophers)

[Nick Roberts]

prolog_student(S) :-
	university(U),
	has_course(U,C),
	is_CS_course(C),
	student(S),
	attends_course(S,C),
	has_old_time_prof(C,OTP),
	not was_at_caltech(OTP),
	(was_at_Edinburgh(OTP);
		was_at_UMadrid(OTP);
		was_at_UPrague(OTP)),
	has_relaxed_pricipal(U).

?- prolog_student(X).
no (more) answers
	

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Steve Dekorte]

> > Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article
> > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the 
> > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.

> The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person 
> has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it 
> to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of 
> any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.  

Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size 
of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life. 
That is, unless you're a manager. ;-)

---
Steve Dekorte 

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Bill Lynch]

Steve Dekorte wrote:

> > > Steve Dekorte <dekorte@slip.net> wrote in article
> > > > Some of the worst code and UI design I've ever seen came from a guy
> > > > with *3* PhDs. I can only guess that people with a tolerance for the
> > > > BS of academia also have a tolerance for BS/ugly code and designs.
>
> > The most important part of a Ph.D. is that it shows that the person
> > has the ability to take on a difficult, multi-year project, and bring it
> > to completion.  This quality is worth its weight in gold, regardless of
> > any knowledge that might or might not have been acquired.
>
> Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size
> of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life.
> That is, unless you're a manager. ;-)
>

Or, even better, a management consultant. The bigger the doc, the bigger the
$$$$$.

Bill Lynch

> ---
> Steve Dekorte

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Bill Lynch]

cyanide wrote:

> > > Or maybe its just caring to read a new book every now and then. I'm
> > an
> > > engineer self-taught in OO, and I can run rings around most
> > programmers.
> > > (Although, not of course someone like yourself who follows these
> > > newsgroups. If you are reading this, you are different from the
> > majority of
> > > dead-fish.) P.S. This is too depressing to be a boast.
>
> Kewl, someone's gotta tell us 1st years how impressive our programming
> is... er... well I got a good mark the _second_ time I took "CSP 1163
> Programming Principals with ADA". (TIC*).
>
> Oliver White.
> Remove stopspam to write me back and offer me a job with boeing.
>
> *TIC: "Tongue In Cheek". A new TLA** conceived by myself.

Very creative, "TIC", but you don't get the copyright:-( We ( in
comp.software.year-2000, comp.lang.asm370, and (probably)
bit.listserv.ibm-main) have used "TIC" = "tongue in cheek" for a while,
now. It's in DejaNews, if you want to check it out.

BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel
command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while
something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you
specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?).

Bill Lynch


>
>
> **TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Jeff Knaggs]

Token-Ring Interface Connector.


> BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel
> command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while
> something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you
> specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?).
>
> Bill Lynch
>
> >
> >
> > **TLA: Three Letter Acronym. See "Unix for Dummies".

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Michael Rot13 Klein]

I wonder what is the SMA?

(Shortest Meaningless Abreviation)

Drifting further off topic....

[cyanide]

> Well, you might have argued about the use of computers to "prove"
> mathematical theorems using a brute-force approach, e.g., the map
> coloring theorem. The debate over what constitues a proof in human
> terms is really quite fascinating. For example, if a computer "proves"
>
> a theorem which no human being could prove simply because of the sheer
>
> bulk of computation required, has that theorem been proven? How can we
>
> know? Are we redefining truth as a thing of consensus? Perhaps we will
>
> eventually define truth as something beyond the grasp of a mere human
> being. Perhaps we will relegate truth to the machine. Hey, don't we
> already do that?

If you have time, you should read the science fiction "Gap Series" by
Steven Donaldson. One of the characters is a guy called Hashi Lebwol, a
man interested only in facts, to whom truth was inconsequential.

Oliver White

Remove "stopspam" to reply.

Back to the topic of CS students. (was Re: Philosophers)

[cyanide]

Calvinball would be a great thing to throw at Prolog students (assuming
that they exist)

Re: Philosophers

[cyanide]

> As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
> believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry'
> song
> now or I get fifteen ghost points.

Hey wow, I had that strip up on my wall! Now who's up for programming
it? (not a flame, I'm serious!)

Oliver White
god I need a sig file, someone mail me personaly removing "stopspam" and
tell me how to do it.

Re: Film "Contact"

[Nick Roberts]

Harold Stevens ** PLEASE SEE SIG ** <stevens@adam.dseg.ti.com> wrote
[...]
> The "dance" of truth, faith, reality, politics, and experience was quite
> eloquently expressed in the movie "Contact" for me.
[...]

Is that the film about a British military patrol in N. Ireland?  If so, I
can recommend it (but note: explicit violence in places).  Made on a
shoestring budget, and all too short, sadly.

Nick Roberts

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

Cyanide wrote in message <34DF21B8.717C4B1@stopspamiinet.net.au>...
>> In engineering, if the programmer writes the application, it'll look
>> great
>> and be absolutely useless.
>> If the engineer writes the application, it'll look like hell, both
>> internally and externally, but it will actually be useful.
>
>Ok, well what do you say to a student like me, who chose to do Software
>Engineering as a degree? (hehe) They do go on about this Barry Boeme guy
>like he solved this divide 20 years ago...


Good for you. Just don't expect to ever understand non-software engineering
problem domains.
If you want to write software for engineers, you'll need to find an engineer
who can speak
both engineering and software and work very hard on the requirements
specifications (and
still don't trust them). In this kind of environment, plan to use
prototyping development,
so the engineers have a chance to trigger their minds to remember all those
"little" things
that were so "obvious" they forgot to mention them.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <34E0D798.E29D6CA0@cableol.co.uk>,
Jeff Knaggs  <jeff.knaggs@cableol.co.uk> wrote:

TermInfo Compiler (utility program accompanying UNIX curses package).

>Token-Ring Interface Connector.
>
>
>> BTW, for us old time IBM big iron dinosaur types, "TIC" is also a channel
>> command, "Transfer in Channel", used in DASD channel programs to wait while
>> something happens, e.g., the r/w head assembly gets to the cylinder you
>> specified. There may, of course, be many other uses I haven't seen (VTAM?).
>>
>> Bill Lynch

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[dogmat]

Steve Dekorte wrote in message <6bqfb7$ilg$1@owl.slip.net>...

>Of course outside acedemia, success/completion is not measured by the size
>of the document describing how you wasted the last 4 years of your life.
>That is, unless you're a manager. ;-)


Just 4? The average time to finish a PhD has risen over the past few years,
to at least 5 or more.
But, what a great way to waste it. Best job ever. Far-off deadlines, your
own workhours, no suit and tie.

Re: Philosophers

[Mad Hamish]

On 28 Jan 1998 15:55:27 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote:

>In article <34cd2808.10685219@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
>Mad Hamish <h_laws@tassie.net.au> wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:00:26 -0700, firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>
>>wrote:
>>> Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
>>>you won't find one.
>>
>>
>>Calvinball comes pretty close. <g>
>
>As I recall Calvinball had rules... just not *consistent* rules.  I
>believe you now have to stand still and sing the 'I'm So Very Sorry' song
>now or I get fifteen ghost points.
>

The only rule in Calvinball is that it can never be played the same way twice.

And _you_ have to sing the song because I was in the reversal zone. <g>

Re: Philosophers

[firewind]

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, John G. wrote:

> However, I would like to ask you if you've considered the phenomenon
> of "Computer Calvinism" which has rooted itself so firmly in the terra
> of CS. For example, the C language itself was slapped together by a
> couple of hackers so that they could use an old computer banished to
> the depths. 

Not even close. Have you ever read "The Development of the C Language,"
by Dennis Ritchie? If not, don't go make incorrect statements about its
origins. First, it was not 'slapped together'; it followed a long and
logical evolution of languages; from BCPL to B to C. Second, the PDP-11 was 
certainly not old at the time, it was quite new, and was not 'banished to the 
depths' of anything. Third, the machine C originated on is hardly indicitive 
of anything at all.

> Since then, C has attained mythological status, requiring the invention of 
> a bible, priests, and a holy church. 

If so, I've been skipping church for many many years, and have yet to read
the bible. Darn.

> There are practical benefits to this sort of fanaticism, but the primary 
> goal seems to be to take all the fun out of it! 
> 
> Where in the standard does it mention, or even _hint_, at just having
> *fun*? 

The standard is a technical document that describes what C -is-. It is up
to the -programmer- to apply that language in an enjoyable (to him, at
least) fashion.

> It's as though fun is something which should appeal only to
> lesser beings, while those who desire to join the church of ANSI must
> treat programming as a soul-consuming avocation. Sure, there are times
> to be serious. But there should also be time for play, as well.
> IMNSHO, creativity feeds upon chaos and irrational emotions, not upon
> endless lists of rules, and rules _about_ the rules.

There must be rules, or it isn't fun for anybody. I certainly respect the
rules the ISO standard has laid out, but I do not consider coding to be
'a soul-consuming avocation.' Imagine if there were no 'holy book' of C;
nothing to which programmer's could point and say, 'That's not correct.'
Personally, I don't consider slogging through lots of code that uses a
few non-portable constructs to save a few lines of a bit of thinking to
be fun. 'Play' can only occur after the rules have been established and
are followed. Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
you won't find one.

> It seems that the desire to impose order upon computer programmers has
> resulted in programmers wanting to _become_ the computer. 

Eww. I wouldn't want to be a computer. -They- love repitition, for example,
while I absolutely loath it.

> Personally, I think computing is a neat trick, and amusing in an odd, 
> obsessive sort of way, but hardly anything to brag about. 

Well, computing being somewhat of a skill, there will be those who will,
inevitably, brag about their prowess.

> It's not as though computers represent a step in human evolution. 

Indeed.

> Even the ideas which CS inspires do not appear to represent anything 
> particularly deep. CS borrows heavily from other fields of thought, but 
> gives back little.

What do you expect? Telling a computer what to do is not a particularly
'deep' process, and isn't likely to inspire anything 'deep.'

> CS might be said to be a wonderful example of applied mathematics, but
> has its existence expanded the ability of the human mind? In essence,
> I think not. 

That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to persue.

> Even AI -- as popularly concieved -- seems doomed to linger in the realm 
> of fantasy.

I hope you are right. But that's a whole 'nother post.

-- 
The FAQ, like the C standard (and, for that matter, the Bible and the US
Constitution) is often used as an authority by clueless people who don't
seem to have read it, at least not with any level of comprehension.
    -- Billy Chambless <billy@cast.msstate.edu> in comp.lang.c

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Ben Pfaff]

Larry Wiggins <lwiggins@siu.edu> writes:

   the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to
   notice.  That is the fact that most programmers are required by their
   college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus,
   linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability

That doesn't mean that programmers without a degree don't know
anything about those subjects.  For instance, I learned most of the
relevant parts of these subjects well in advance of going to college
simply because I needed them to write the software that I wanted to
write.

   ....as well as physics and chemistry

Which are irrelevant for programmers unless you're writing software
for use with either of these subjects.

   ....so there for, many programmer's with an actual degree will do
   well, possibly better, because they will have been formally taught
   these subject as well as structured programs....

I haven't been impressed with the ability of the CS students I've met
to write structured programs.  All of the best programmers I've met
have been self-taught.

-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six
 feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 29 Jul 1999 14:40:30 -0400, Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@msu.edu> wrote:
>Larry Wiggins <lwiggins@siu.edu> writes:
>
>   the only thing that most of the people on this group have failed to
>   notice.  That is the fact that most programmers are required by their
>   college curricula to complete two years of math covering calculus,
>   linear algebra, discrete math, and statistics, and probability
>
>That doesn't mean that programmers without a degree don't know
>anything about those subjects.  For instance, I learned most of the

Please don't reply to this thread. It's ancient articles reposted by
some idiotic M$ Exchange server. Look at the NNTP-Posting-Host.

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Edwin Purvee]

dogmat wrote in a message
> Perhaps it comes down to training. I doubt many programmers
> would be willing to go back and spend 4+ years learning the
> intricacies of engineering principles (most haven't even a clue about
> numerical methods).
Hey!  I got an A in Numerical Methods just to let you know.

Ed
epurvee@mail.snu.edu

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Paul Groves]

Computer Science - pure computer science - is an exercise in
manipulating type domains.  Its very mathematically
intensive and not for the faint hearted.

Its about abstract things like Finite State Automata, Lambda
transitions and language grammars.

If you told a Chemisty graduate that you supply the computer
to the program, he probably wouldn't understand it fully...


These large IT companies who accept graudates from virtually
any disapline and send them on C++ training courses are
harming the IT industry - I believe we're paying the price
for that now...

Paul.
BTW.
Why was this crossposted to an Ada group?  Looking for a
half decent language ;-) (Emphasis on "half")

Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?

[Kaz Kylheku]

On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 01:38:19 GMT, Paul Groves <paulyg@clara.net> wrote:

>Why was this crossposted to an Ada group?  Looking for a
>half decent language ;-) (Emphasis on "half")

It was crossposted over a year ago. You are responding to an old article that
was regurgitated by some goofball's MS Exchange server a week or two ago.  The
offending party took no initiative in sending out cancellation requests for the
guiltyleaked articles, and probably wouldn't have a clue how.