Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Problem Of Developing

Posted by Hemos on from the how-to-develop-code dept.

A reader writes "ZDNet News is running an editorial about the choice of programming languages for developers today. The author suggests that developers have been left with little choice because all of the current programming languages are essentially the same."

4 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. All languages are *not* the same by Rupert · · Score: 1, Troll

    Except in the bizarre world of the CLR.

    Programmers have many choices. Programmers who choose to use .NET have limited themselves to C# and its "skins", as pointed out in the article.

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
  2. Programming in the US Military by kryonD · · Score: 1, Troll

    I run a software development section for the Marine Corps and we use two languages that are very different.

    C is used for all our web based stuff to ensure that it is platform independant. We could have used C++, but most of our programmers are folks who have a limitted background with computers so we keep it simple. Java was also rejected for reasons of simplicity as well as the sheer number of pages I've seen crap out do to poorly written scripts.

    VB is used in conjuction with MS Access when we need a quick and dirty DB for someone to do some custom queries on. Again, choice of language is mainly due to simplicity as well as the DOD's preference for MS on the desktop.

    While these two languages really don't look that different just looking at the code itself. The environment and process of writing in them is completely different. We have actually found it better to train our folks in VB first because once they learn C, they usually have an aversion to going back to VB's limitations despite its simplicity.

    Other languages such as Perl, php, and C# were considered, but rejected to stay inline with the majority of software developed for DOD.

    Hope this was informative.

    --
    I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
  3. Re:I don't _THINK_ so! by Kickstart70 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Stupid comment system logged me out for no reason. I wrote the above.

  4. Re:C# by GeckoX · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hmm, maybe when I first posted the original post had been modded "informative".

    And just maybe by the time you got here it had changed to "insightful".

    And just maybe it's currently sitting at "Funny".

    Gee, funny how that happens ehh?
    BTW: This has been a _sarcastic_ comment for those whom can't figure that out.

    --
    No Comment.