<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do we really need another programming language?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:56:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Jones</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-236</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:20:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-236</guid>
		<description>&quot;The obvious way to make a language more expressive, then, is to make it more declarative — to describe what the program does, not how it does it.&quot;

Declarative programming has been around for years.  You even mentioned a declarative language in your article - Erlang.  And whilst declarative languages (such as Haskell or the Mathmatica example) are useful in functional, mathematical and logic problems there has yet to be what I would consider a really good &quot;general purpose&quot; declarative language.

I believe this factor, combined with the way computer science is taught and the already existing wealth of structured programs out there, are the reasons why declarative programming has not taken off.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The obvious way to make a language more expressive, then, is to make it more declarative — to describe what the program does, not how it does it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Declarative programming has been around for years.  You even mentioned a declarative language in your article &#8211; Erlang.  And whilst declarative languages (such as Haskell or the Mathmatica example) are useful in functional, mathematical and logic problems there has yet to be what I would consider a really good &#8220;general purpose&#8221; declarative language.</p>
<p>I believe this factor, combined with the way computer science is taught and the already existing wealth of structured programs out there, are the reasons why declarative programming has not taken off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Wright</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-235</link>
		<dc:creator>David Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:15:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-235</guid>
		<description>It is amazing the number of &quot;programmers&quot; today who have no knowledge of programming language, efficiencies and how to document and test their code.

I worked for a web development agency and on one of the eShops, the server would lock up after about 50 sessions! (So they had a farm of servers.) By optimising the queries and optimising some of the code, especially if() statements, the servers could suddenly handle a couple of hundred sessions each.

Using caching pushed it up even higher.

Little things, like always testing the positive in an if() statement, not the negative (if possible) are lost on many modern programmers.

Do we need new languages? Not necessarily, but if they are optimised for certain tasks or open up a new way of doing things, then there isn&#039;t any reason for not having them. Developing a language for the languages sake or because people don&#039;t want to use use other people&#039;s languages (Microsoft are culprit number one here with J++ and C#, C# isn&#039;t that bad, but it was a language for political reasons more than anything else).

What we do need is to teach programmers how to code properly! And not just designing and documenting their program BEFORE WRITING ANY CODE, but also how to best optimise that code.

I am now working on a site where the hardware dates back to 2002 and even a fully patched Windows XP SP2/3 is too much for the hardware, without getting a fully patched Office 2003 to run on it! Add in a current A/V software and the machine grinds to a halt - a bad one was a month ago, the AV company put out a patch, where it suddenly needed 30MB RAM to run; the previous patch used 8MB. On my new Toshiba laptop, with 4GB RAM and Windows 7 64-bit, I didn&#039;t notice a problem, but the users on a 1.2Ghz Athlon with 256MB RAM complained that their machine was taking nearly 10 minutes to boot up, one user needed nearly 40 minutes for his machine to load Outlook.

The next version dropped the memory footprint back down and the machines work reasonably again and I am upgrading memory, where I can. But the developers should be forced to use the minimum specification machines to test their code, before it is released (getting unit and system testing out of the way quickly on a well specified machine is all well and fine, but it still needs to be tested against their own minimum specifications!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is amazing the number of &#8220;programmers&#8221; today who have no knowledge of programming language, efficiencies and how to document and test their code.</p>
<p>I worked for a web development agency and on one of the eShops, the server would lock up after about 50 sessions! (So they had a farm of servers.) By optimising the queries and optimising some of the code, especially if() statements, the servers could suddenly handle a couple of hundred sessions each.</p>
<p>Using caching pushed it up even higher.</p>
<p>Little things, like always testing the positive in an if() statement, not the negative (if possible) are lost on many modern programmers.</p>
<p>Do we need new languages? Not necessarily, but if they are optimised for certain tasks or open up a new way of doing things, then there isn&#8217;t any reason for not having them. Developing a language for the languages sake or because people don&#8217;t want to use use other people&#8217;s languages (Microsoft are culprit number one here with J++ and C#, C# isn&#8217;t that bad, but it was a language for political reasons more than anything else).</p>
<p>What we do need is to teach programmers how to code properly! And not just designing and documenting their program BEFORE WRITING ANY CODE, but also how to best optimise that code.</p>
<p>I am now working on a site where the hardware dates back to 2002 and even a fully patched Windows XP SP2/3 is too much for the hardware, without getting a fully patched Office 2003 to run on it! Add in a current A/V software and the machine grinds to a halt &#8211; a bad one was a month ago, the AV company put out a patch, where it suddenly needed 30MB RAM to run; the previous patch used 8MB. On my new Toshiba laptop, with 4GB RAM and Windows 7 64-bit, I didn&#8217;t notice a problem, but the users on a 1.2Ghz Athlon with 256MB RAM complained that their machine was taking nearly 10 minutes to boot up, one user needed nearly 40 minutes for his machine to load Outlook.</p>
<p>The next version dropped the memory footprint back down and the machines work reasonably again and I am upgrading memory, where I can. But the developers should be forced to use the minimum specification machines to test their code, before it is released (getting unit and system testing out of the way quickly on a well specified machine is all well and fine, but it still needs to be tested against their own minimum specifications!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Schatz</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-234</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Schatz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:55:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-234</guid>
		<description>Speaking of memory limitations, this brings back memories...

http://www.classic-games.com/commodore64/64doc.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of memory limitations, this brings back memories&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.classic-games.com/commodore64/64doc.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.classic-games.com/commodore64/64doc.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Wolfe</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-233</link>
		<dc:creator>George Wolfe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-233</guid>
		<description>The discussion should be based on systematic framework for evaluating languages (eg, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language). Languages have different features: typed/untyped, procedural/functional, etc. Consider a multi-dimention matrix all possible combinations of features. We could argue which cells need to be filled and why, but perhaps we only need specific cells to be filled and only one language in a cell.

Maybe we need only a few very different languages. Maybe some languages would be for programmers operating at a particular level of sophistication.  But this discussion need a framework. Thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The discussion should be based on systematic framework for evaluating languages (eg, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language). Languages have different features: typed/untyped, procedural/functional, etc. Consider a multi-dimention matrix all possible combinations of features. We could argue which cells need to be filled and why, but perhaps we only need specific cells to be filled and only one language in a cell.</p>
<p>Maybe we need only a few very different languages. Maybe some languages would be for programmers operating at a particular level of sophistication.  But this discussion need a framework. Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caleb Cushing</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-232</link>
		<dc:creator>Caleb Cushing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-232</guid>
		<description>whoops... I read over the part where it said haskell.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>whoops&#8230; I read over the part where it said haskell.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caleb Cushing</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-231</link>
		<dc:creator>Caleb Cushing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-231</guid>
		<description>my understanding is that Haskell is considered Declarative (although not massively popular and a bit different from imperative languages)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my understanding is that Haskell is considered Declarative (although not massively popular and a bit different from imperative languages)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vix612</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-230</link>
		<dc:creator>vix612</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-230</guid>
		<description>Considering your last sentence is FORTH from Charlie Moore the most recommended for you - it makes you possible totaly concentrate on the problem, but maybe you wouldn&#039;t like it because of more thinking than writing on first trials with that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Considering your last sentence is FORTH from Charlie Moore the most recommended for you &#8211; it makes you possible totaly concentrate on the problem, but maybe you wouldn&#8217;t like it because of more thinking than writing on first trials with that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-229</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-229</guid>
		<description>Yes, we do need another language - but Google Go isn&#039;t it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, we do need another language &#8211; but Google Go isn&#8217;t it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: azgolfer</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-228</link>
		<dc:creator>azgolfer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-228</guid>
		<description>No, as soon as NewSpeak is finished we can all just write code.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, as soon as NewSpeak is finished we can all just write code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Armstrong</title>
		<link>http://paulbutler.org/archives/do-we-really-need-another-programming-language/#comment-227</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Armstrong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulbutler.org/?p=239#comment-227</guid>
		<description>&quot;we still write applications that, say, directly use pointer arithmetic and manually allocate and deallocate memory&quot;

I was surprised to see you write that, I haven&#039;t written a program that does that since we were forced to as a history lesson in college (early 2000).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;we still write applications that, say, directly use pointer arithmetic and manually allocate and deallocate memory&#8221;</p>
<p>I was surprised to see you write that, I haven&#8217;t written a program that does that since we were forced to as a history lesson in college (early 2000).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

