Re: One language environment don't have future

[Karel Miklav <karel@inetis.spppambait.com>]

Kevin Cline wrote:
> Karel Miklav wrote:
>> Stephen Leake wrote:
>>> UML is just another "computer tongues". It's partly graphical,
>>> but that's not really such a big deal!
>> 
>> The IT tower of Babel may never be built, but UML and tools around
>> it are a step forward.
> 
> The software development community seems to disagree. After many
> years on the market, graphical programming systems are still not
> widely used.

I agree, but it proves nothing. And it's shure not the case in my business.

>> And there is a difference between modeling and coding; I guess
>> we're not going to rewrite data structures in all sorts of
>> languages forever?
> 
> In any interesting computer program there are thousands of details
> that must be specified.  The details don't come from the programming
> language, they come from the customer. The programmer's job is to
> translate the customer's wants into some sort of executable
> specification.  Regardless of programming language, that job will
> remain, and it will require close attention to detail.

Ok, but how popular are assemblers today? Modeling tools are able to
produce code out of a skillfuly crafted model in any language and 
they'll sonner or later have a Compile button. And you will be able to 
tweak the generated code as much as you want. It's not that I'm 
interested in science fiction, I'm just asking myself what benefit do I 
have from learning ada or is it just an obstacle from being a part of a 
bigger picture?

> And some programmers will be vastly better at the job than others.

You're talking about automata, right?

> So far, the best programmers haven't found much value in graphical
> programming environments.

Are you speaking in the name of the Best Programmers Association? I 
might be impolite but you can't pull cards out of your sleeve like that, 
you're not Colin Powell, man :)

>> I can't say that one language environment has a future, but 95% out
>> of thousands of languages surely doesn't, because orders of
>> magnitude of users do matter. And even then, I'm not sure that
>> textual representation of logic is the best there can be.
> 
> Well, considering that most of the information in books is currently 
> textual, and has been for many centuries, it seems unlikely that 
> pictorial representations of program logic will prove superior within
> our lifetimes.

Kevin, It's not about disagreing with you, I just wish to see some
progress in IT. And I'm little frustrated as I can't change the tiniest
bit :)

Thank you,
Karel Miklav