On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:03:15 GMT, "Albert D. Kallal" <kallal (AT) msn (DOT) com>
wrote:

That's not really true. Most C developers have to start with BASIC,
pseudo assembler, and assembler. What happens is you have developers
who get started in programming outside of the typical education
process and they get stuck in a certain language because that's all
they've known. MV is just as guilty about this as a lot of gung-ho C
programmers are. How many MV developers do you know, that have picked
up a C book and tried to learn the basics of C? How many of those
developers moved into MV development from a non-IT/non-computer
position?

Glen

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Tony Gravagno wrote:
<snip>
Great quotes! I might have to use one or more of these myself
sometime. Thanks. --dawn

And I sincerely hope you are going to use them as examples of unbridled
arrogance (or possibly poor attempts at humor) on the part of computer
scientists, particularly Mr Djikstra's, or I'll be sorely disappointed in
you, Dawn!

Chandru

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Hi
I strongly recommend that one reads Albert's piece about the use of Access
objects before throwing aspersions. Pick as used by a lot of people who
have made a lot of money is very poorly implemented but it is a graet
environment. Just because someone uses a screwdriver to stir paint does not
mean that it is a useless tool.

Personally I have always written event driven programming in Pick using a
4gl of our own design. My maintenance is minimal and my productivity
terrific. Also there is no black box junk in my code it can be maintained
without the tool. However the most important rules I have ever been taught
are

Initialise everything.
Write the user instructions first.

If you do not have an overall plan with the files/tables and their uses
mapped out you can muck anything up.
Djikstra is particularly silly. Properly planned productivity is the only
proper way to program in any language . C is a classic example of a language
that nobody should be allowed to use for normal commercial code. Even the
writer cannot understand it 6 months later in most cases.
My two pennorth
Peter McMurray
"murthi" <c_xyz_murthi (AT) seeing_xyz_green (DOT) net> wrote

murthi wrote:
10 OK I'll use them that way then. smiles. --dawn
20 P.S. If you are reading this a second time END
25 I don't usually diss Dijkstra, however.
30 I recall Grace Hopper referring to his work fondly.
40 She was called "Grandma COBOL."
45 COBOL and BASIC developers can both appreciate the advantages of
structured code, especially if you have ever written it otherwise
47 REM I'll admit I wrote some nasty COBOL before I learned about
structured programming
50 I also don't think Dijkstra was referring to DataBASIC.
55 So, overall I'm a fan of Dijkstra
60 GOTO 10

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:27:36 GMT, "Peter McMurray"
<excalibur21 (AT) bigpond (DOT) com> wrote:


What language do you think that browser or newsreader you are using
right now was written in? It definately wasn't Visual Basic. My guess
is that it was Visual C++. BTW, I have no problem reading C code that
is properly commented and modularized as it should be. I've seen the
extreme worse top-down gosub spaghetti code in dealings with Pick.

Glen

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dawn,

My compiler keeps complaining about the syntax of your response (and
I'm not even going to open the GOTO debate - Shame on you!! [and don't
try & blame the language!!])

Ross Ferris wrote:
I definitely won't blame the language. I can write code that sucks in
any language, with or without a GOTO.

Cheers! --dawn
P.S. Fortunately, a couple of years after I started coding in the 70's
I learned about structured programming (and OO more recently). So, I
think I can also write some pretty good code in several languages.

"Glen" <nospamwebmaster (AT) all-spec (DOT) all-spec.com.com> wrote

It is unfortunate that most C programmers do not do what you describe. It
has far too many loopholes that crash the system to be suitable for
commercial use and unfortunately far too many smart alecs that like multi
statement lines writing it. NB I said C not Visual C++, the language is
gradually being cleaned up.
By the way Visual C++ and Visual Basic both use the same engine now so there
is no advantage to either except that Basic is better for commercial use.
Please note my stress on commercial use. That is day to day programs
written by the average joe.
I remember with glee the multitude of stuff ups when the size of a variable
type changed with Apple a couple of years back and the systems crashed for
example.
Regards
Peter McMurray

I think it's fair to say that you can write "good" or "bad" code in any
programming language... When referring to good/bad, I mean the code
itself, not the application written in that code. A vb program can be as
well written as a c++ program.

It just happens to be that vb perhaps lends itself to use by people who
aren't seasoned programmers, whereas c++ tends to attract the "egg-heads"...

This is not a reflection on the language itself, but more of the people that
use it.

Personally, I hope I fall mid-camp... I write in vb.net and databasic...
Hopefully, I write reasonably well structured code in both, though my vb.net
code is not "fully" object orientated if a purist was to look at it.

I too "hate" using GOTO anywhere in code... There should not really be a
need for it. I've worked many a day on tidying up spaghetti code caused by
a multitude of GOTO's instead of lots of nice neat subroutines...

Worse that the use of GOTO of course is the use of "RETURN TO"... Whoever
decided that RETURN TO was a good addition to DataBasic deserves a firing
squad (IMHO!)...

Regards
Simon
regards
Simon
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote