From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,ac4955b8006bd13c X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.220.230 with SMTP id pz6mr10885636pbc.3.1338825339619; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni20678pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Shark8 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Q: type ... is new String Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.2.54.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1338825257 8707 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2012 15:54:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:54:17 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=96.2.54.122; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-04T08:54:16-07:00 List-Id: On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:39:56 AM UTC-5, Brian Drummond wrote: > Now, we can debate the relative merits of "is new String" versus "is new= =20 > Array <> of Character" but how do we get the message out there that=20 > recognized industry experts (and I'm not quoting "expert" because I=20 > believe he is, in his field) are recommending "Real Solutions" that=20 > impose weeks of painful and unnecessary work on unsuspecting programmers= =20 > for ... what purpose? what gain? Well, if we assume that programmers have an inherent zero-sum masochistic s= ense then this makes perfect sense. A programmer will then choose the langu= age which "hurts" in the ways most acceptable to him: B&D language vs. B&D = lifestyle. We of the former must obviously have low tolerance for pain-duration (we wa= nt the compiler to catch the most errors and berate us at compile-time) whe= reas the others enjoy long drawn-out pains (especially when some intermitte= nt error somewhere absolutely needs fixed and you have to spend days debugg= ing the program to find out what's going on). I think more people are attracted to the latter because "debugging isn't fu= n", "isn't fun" -> "work" therefore debugging is work. (And thus the more d= ebugging they do the more sense of accomplishment for their work they feel.= )