Re: One language environment don't have future

[kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline)]

Karel Miklav <karel@inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message news:<nrv0a.654$wK6.41205@news.siol.net>...
> 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.

> 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.  And some programmers will be vastly
better at the job than others.  So far, the best programmers
haven't found much value in graphical programming environments.

> 
> 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.