|
evolutions, man, evolutions....
|
|
|
|
|
Statements like those are the doom of computer science ...
About the only thing in CS that still haven't evolved is language.
Why ?
Not because people haven't discovered anything new.
Because everyone just pick the most popular language like the natural thing to do.
So, I might correct previous statement to something along the lines : languages HAVE evolved, but people still prefer dinosaurs out of mental inertia.
People spend countless hours trying to find and learn the best platform, the best framework, the best library, the best algorithm, the best data structure BUT nada for the language, the very thing they will use to build and glue everything together.
All that being said, C++ is good at low level stuff and at to the metal optimizations. Nothing more. Really.
Some languages that really shine when put under an inquisitive light :
SmallTalk (There is a S# compiler available from SmallScript[^])
Python
And dare I say it, LISP !!
And no, as far as I'm concerned, NOT Perl !!!!
Sébastien
Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
Homepage : http://www.slorion.webhop.org
|
|
|
|
|
Sébastien Lorion wrote:
All that being said, C++ is good at low level stuff and at to the metal optimizations. Nothing more. Really.
Really?[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are so many reasons why a coporation might pick a particular language for an application that a list like that is useless in proving any sort of point other than the simple one of settling an argument as to which language product X was written in.
|
|
|
|
|
I bet you will learn a lot from this one, see for more! 
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, it's a pretty good real-time kernel (and the book is excellent). Not very applicable to Windows development though!
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen that you have posted this link in the lounge as well..Stop spamming the board TW.
Regards,
Agni.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that was me, in the "other" category. Come now, people. Doesn't anyone have the vision of reversing the tractor beam to a repulsor beam by simply poking at a wall-sized equipment plan for 30 seconds? I think the same thing can be done with software. String up a bunch of web services, interconnect them using a REAL visual studio, and *poof*, a brand spanking new custom application.
That's the future of high level programming, IMHO.
Marc
Latest AAL Article
My blog
Join my forum!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Scripting within a plugin framework is the way forward. At least I think it is. Currently I only use limited VB scripting at the moment but am hoping to move forward and work on a C# based system.
On the fly system changes. So when I'm on site and the customer says, "Can we make it so the user has to enter this first and then that rather than the way we originally asked for it." I can make the changes without a problem, without having to recompile and still making it straight forward to go back to the original when they change their mind back again. (Oh and still charge them twice  )
My dream.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
You're aware systems like Smaltalk have had this for ages (Smalltalk goes back to 72-73)?
But they have never caught on. (AFAIK)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote:
You're aware systems like Smaltalk have had this for ages
Oh yes. Scriptable, pluggable applications have been a dream of mine since I started coding. Sadly I've never come across a decent enough platform that allowed for the kind of flexibility that I require.
C#, .NET and XML are the new best hope for implementing my vision. I wish I had the time to start building it, but at the moment paying the bills is taking precedence. Plus I have the vain hope that Microsoft will change .NET to support XML based forms rather than the code based WinForms. One of the keystones of my ideas requires that the user-interface be altered on the fly, something that C# doesn't really support as native. And I hate to write something that might turn up in the next .NET release.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
One of the keystones of my ideas requires that the user-interface be altered on the fly, something that C# doesn't really support as native.
I really should do that in my next AAL article.
Marc
Latest AAL Article
My blog
Join my forum!
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
One of the keystones of my ideas requires that the user-interface be altered on the fly, something that C# doesn't really support as native
Yeah, .NET really neads an XForms implementation for WinForms. Somthing like this[^]. But less crap.
Ryan.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
Sadly I've never come across a decent enough platform that allowed for the kind of flexibility that I require.
The VBScript run-time for instance allows just this, and it's available for a bunch of years.
Another example, my former company pays Microsoft 150,000$ dollars a year to host the VBA editor into the product line, and as a result make the application scriptable and debuggable interactively.
Michael P Butler wrote:
C#, .NET and XML are the new best hope for implementing my vision
Don't forget that Xml is only going to bring the lowest common denominator in terms of UI. If you are looking for fancy UIs, it's clear to me that you need custom code, not xml.
I have been repurposing ActiveX properties and methods using xml, and build UIs on top of this and it's my own experiment that the UI is too simple. For instance, I need to add a validation layer to the UI, and the beauty of xml declaration (as seen in articles) is not going to help a lot in this area. My 0.5 cent.
RSS feed
|
|
|
|
|
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote:
The VBScript run-time for instance allows just this, and it's available for a bunch of years.
I have VB script plugged into a number of my applications. It does the job, but it's not really what I'm looking for for the flexibility.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote:
Don't forget that Xml is only going to bring the lowest common denominator in terms of UI. If you are looking for fancy UIs, it's clear to me that you need custom code, not xml.
I have been repurposing ActiveX properties and methods using xml, and build UIs on top of this and it's my own experiment that the UI is too simple. For instance, I need to add a validation layer to the UI, and the beauty of xml declaration (as seen in articles) is not going to help a lot in this area. My 0.5 cent.
What I want to try and achieve to start with is the equivalant of the .RC file. Except my application will parse the resource file at run-time rather than at compile time. I will be only limited by the controls that my forms runtime knows about, which is where the plugable architecture comes in.
It should be possible to devise an XML schema that allows validation to be described so that the forms runtime can validate the forms without having to code it for every form.
I don't know how much of what I plan to do is achievable or technically possible. I need to spec out my feature set first, then see if I can design and implement it.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
What I want to try and achieve to start with is the equivalant of the .RC file.
With C/C++ code you can already decide to go the hardcore way and creating controls yourself instead of using .RC dialog templates. Using Xml to describe controls is like cheese, and you there are implementations for this already.
The point is that, once you get down to UIs you start needing things like "conditional properties", that is things that react depending on some selected values, or things that popup depending on user actions. And Xml does not bring you the plumbing. The plumbing is still plain row code.
While we are at it, what I like about dynamic UIs is more the achievement of separation as most as possible of the application logic and the UI logic, using a subscription model (windows messages) which notifies of events, rather than writing new APIs over and over again, which ends up like specialized and costly code to maintain.
My 0.5 cent.
RSS feed
|
|
|
|
|
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote:
The point is that, once you get down to UIs you start needing things like "conditional properties", that is things that react depending on some selected values, or things that popup depending on user actions.
That's one of the things I'm researching. In theory most of these actions could be described as business rules. As they are rules, they should be able to be described in meta data. For anything that the metadata file cannot handle, well that's why I need scripting.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote:
While we are at it, what I like about dynamic UIs is more the achievement of separation as most as possible of the application logic and the UI logic, using a subscription model (windows messages) which notifies of events,
Me too. That is my aim, to seperate the UI logic from the business logic. I know that a lot of what I want is a pipedream because at the end of the day we'll always need some code writing. I'm just trying to find a way to avoid having to write the boring form/form validation/data loading and saving without having to resort to code generators.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uwe Keim wrote:
...and so... what did Google say?
At a guess.
Been There, Done That.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you downloaded cygwin, you have that cool little utility, wtf.exe:
dturini@desnn ~
$ wtf BTDT
BTDT: been there, done that
You can do it on anything you choose - from .bat to .net - A customer
|
|
|
|
|
Scripting?
That is because Scripting Framework project?
Or Scripting Framework project because scripting?
I am very like IDispatch and IMoniker but not sure that
future it is scripting. May be, but when I think about
Borland C++ Builder, Delphi, Visual Basic, C# and even
UML I think that future it is visualization in
programming and languages. The man must see (in mind) what
he create as Plato said . The world of things, the
world of ideas...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
