|
Like to do code and develop apps,no matter what is the language.Because i think symbol is different,but logic is indifferent  !
|
|
|
|
|
Reality is the Dev lanscape is ever changing, so we should be ever learning. Obviously there is no way to learn every language, but staying current in several varieties is a must.
|
|
|
|
|
How many of us would implement something in assembler even if it were (for some strange reason) the most suiting for the job?
It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality.
That means of course that they don't exist.
However, they do!
∫(Edo )dx = Tzumer
∑k( this.Kid) k = this. ♥
|
|
|
|
|
101000101001010100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101
010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010
100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100
010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010100101010101010
101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100010100101010010
101010101010101101000101001010100101010101010101011010001010
010101001010101010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101
101000101001010100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101
010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010
100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100
010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010100101010101010
101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100010100101010010
101010101010101101000101001010100101010101010101011010001010
010101001010101010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101
101000101001010100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101
010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010
100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100
010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010100101010101010
101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100010100101010010
101010101010101101000101001010100101010101010101011010001010
010101001010101010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101
101000101001010100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101
010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010
100101010101010101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100
010100101010010101010101010101101000101001010100101010101010
101011010001010010101001010101010101010110100010100101010010
10101010101010110100010100101010010101010101010101
|
|
|
|
|
OK, except you,
btw, you have a bug there, you typed a 0 instead of 1 here:
101010010101010101010101101000101001010
It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality.
That means of course that they don't exist.
However, they do!
∫(Edo )dx = Tzumer
∑k( this.Kid) k = this. ♥
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a bug, it's art 
|
|
|
|
|
01011001011011110111010100100111
01110010011001010010000001100011
01101111011001000110010100100000
01101001011100110010000001101010
01110101011100110111010000100000
01100111011010010110001001100010
01100101011100100110100101110011
01101000001011100010000001010000
01101100011001010110000101110011
01100101001000000111001001100101
01110100011100100111100100100000
01100001011011100110010000100000
01110000011011110111001101110100
00100000011000010110011101100001
011010010110111000101110
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
S Houghtelin wrote: 01011001011011110111010100100111
01110010011001010010000001100011
01101111011001000110010100100000
01101001011100110010000001101010
01110101011100110111010000100000
01100111011010010110001001100010
01100101011100100110100101110011
01101000001011100010000001010000
01101100011001010110000101110011
01100101001000000111001001100101
01110100011100100111100100100000
01100001011011100110010000100000
01110000011011110111001101110100
00100000011000010110011101100001
011010010110111000101110
010010010010000001100011011011110110111001100011011101010111001000100001
010010010010000001110111011011110110111001100100011001010111001000100000
011101110110100001100001011101000010000001000011010100000101010100100000
011010000110010100100000011101110110000101110011001000000111011101110010
011010010111010001101001011011100110011100100000011101000110100001100001
011101000010000001100110011011110111001000101110
|
|
|
|
|
Maimonides wrote: the most suiting for the job
The question doesn't state that.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm  actually it does:
2nd answer: No, I prefer to use the language that best suits the specific task
It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality.
That means of course that they don't exist.
However, they do!
∫(Edo )dx = Tzumer
∑k( this.Kid) k = this. ♥
|
|
|
|
|
I learnd Pascal, C++, VB, C#, SQL and some Sript things, it was a bit of fun.
I don't like to learn the same again, e.g. how works a combo-box in VB, C++, C#, ASP, etc.
I don't like to learn the small differences between MS-SQL, Oracle or MySQL.
I don't like to learn the diffrent short-cuts in any programms.
Programming is my passion, but it is not an easy task. 
*** Fast Prototyping ***
|
|
|
|
|
GUI is a one little, specific task. It makes sense to use just one, specific language for it. Fortunately, GUI is just a tiny (and often irrelevant) bit of programming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I meant - GUI development is *very* specific. Majority of programmers should never touch it - it requires some very unusual and rare talents. That's the reason why most of the software out there is barely usable, with ugly and slow GUI. How many of the modern coders are capable of implementing a fully asynchronous UI? How many are aware of all the rules and tricks of the usability? How many are even aware of the usability testing methodologies?
I admit that I'm helpless in anything-GUI, and so, I never wrote a single line of a GUI code in my whole 20+yrs career. But the others are not that honest, they're trying to implement GUIs without being actually capable of doing it right.
Fortunately, GUIs are only required for a very narrow set of tasks, and the vast majority of programming is not related to any kind of graphical interfaces (or any user interaction at all). There are no UIs in embedded development, no UIs in high-frequency trading, no UIs in compilers, no UIs in network infrastructure-level coding, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
The becoming of the GUI development seems that will be to make the front end in HTML.
The web interfaces are becoming more usable than desktop.
|
|
|
|
|
But yet, they require the same skill set and the same rare talents. Majority of coders are doing them wrong. How many web interfaces you can list which are really usable, nice and smooth? I definitely won't run out of fingers on such a list.
|
|
|
|
|
All google sites, all ms sites, almos all yahoo sites.
The point is that is very easy to develop GUIs with html/css/javascript
|
|
|
|
|
Yahoo is totally unusable and aesthetically unacceptable. Google mail became barely usable only recently. Navigation in most of the MS sites is a total nightmare. Even a google search UI is not ideal - e.g., an access to the cached copies is confusing.
Looks like we're setting a threshold of tolerance on very different levels. In my opinion, 99.99% of those who are currently doing a "very easy" job of "developing GUIs with html/css/javascript" should have never started.
Actually, the underlying technology is totally irrelevant. It does not matter if UI is implemented on top of HTML5 stack, or pure Win32, or WPF, or GTK+, or Qt, or whatever else. The relevant skills and talents are outside of the programming scope, they're more akin to art, and for this reason, rare.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you're after a set of standards. It's been tried ad-infinitum with the only result being: yet more standards which give you more differences.
Nice idea, but due to humans, impracticable.
As a starting point, such standard will need to accommodate ALL scenarios - already impossible, since no-one seems to have the ability to see into the future. So you already have the makings for non-backwards-compatible standards, as these might have to be modified (not just added to) in the future as new concepts are introduced and some are replaced.
Not to mention, some niche might have to make their own piece since the "standards committee" feels they're too "irrelevant" to even be discussed - i.e. you've just created a fork with it's own set of differences.
Then, as is usual, get more than one person in the room deciding on "how to do this one task" - and you find they come up with (at least) 2 solutions which work in different ways; more people means more differences. Sure you can "vote" on it, but again humans tend to be egotistical about "their own" ideas - many a standard got spin-offs due to some group thinking one method is better than the other and because they were vetoed by the majority they start their own. I.e. yet another fork.
And then lastly, most commercial libs/envs have some "secrets" from one another. These tend to "beg" for differences all over the show. Just consider the issues with the browser DOM's, how long has the W3C committee been at making a more "standard" HTML? HTML5 isn't even complete yet, and already there seems to be differences as one browser does this, but not that and has an alternative for the other, etc.etc.
I tend to ignore these "differences", that's why documentation exists. I've never been able to create anything more than a intro-to-programming type project (i.e. not much more than a "Hello World") without having to at least look-up some "special" in the libs/environment/language. And if documentation doesn't exist, that lib/env/lang is less than useless - no matter how much of a "standard" they've created for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to go with the 1 language option, give me c# everywhere, then I read the question properly and realised I did not want to give up TSQL.
Then I read some of the comments around EF and agreed with myself even more, I definitely want TSQL, however if you could please replace javascript with c# I would be extremely grateful.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
You all would like to be able to program everything with a language that would need to eat Bacon and drink Beer to program like:
1 beer sip means open parenthesis, one bacon bite means close parenthesis... 
PS: when will we have a bacon emoticon?
|
|
|
|
|
Let me see now, so going to the urinal would be compiling ... what would debugging be 
|
|
|
|
|
Probably to compile some projects would not be going to the "urinal"... 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if your language is anything close to Lisp you'd need to pretty soon!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
