All ages have false idols and images. I think our Gauloises smoking friends across the pond mean that we Americans recognize our false idols and images as unreality and we just dont care for the difference between authentic and simulated experiences.
Our simulation of consumer freedom is paramount: to substitute one repertoire of received styles for another.
Cool was the name used to replace the void of vacated freedom and authenticity conquered an age ago.
Just ask Thomas Frank and his friends at the Baffler.
From a rational point of view the choice between languages like C++/Java, scripting languages and hybrids (like Visual Basic) is merely a question of where management wants to invest their intellectual capital: spend large amounts of time at the beginning in modeling and specification OR roll and code and get it out on the road. Bypassing specification (for instance the necessity of designing data structures in C++ and Java because of data typing) the "speed" associated with Scripting languages after all slows down due to future (in most business cases, inevitable) redesign requirements. The prejudice against scripters grows from the experience of grappling with a scripted program's resistance to change over time and by different hands. The whole object based force in programming arose because of the necessity of developing evolving requirements over long periods of time and by many hands. Dot notation, which is common to both scripting and compiled languages, is simply syntactical simplification and does not equal the use of data structures. The presence of data typing in a language, which slows initial development, is the very reason for the necessity of implementing data structures. The correctness of data structures in both design and implementation provide ongoing proof cases for asserting (in the debugging sense of the word) the validity of inputs and outputs which will vary widely over the lifetime of an application. The issue revolves around the primitive distinction between languages which require data types and those that don't. The validity of source code which does not rely on typing is many times difficult to obtain. Of course if the lifetime of an application is short and it's problem set narrow to the overview of one programmer then validity is not relevant. A problem exists when robust and scripting occur in the same paragraph because I have no idea how you would measure and reasonably certify the robustness of reusable scripted code without types besides of course by just making the claim.
I dont accept the appeasement argument. WWII developed out the mistake the Western democracies made in using a madman build an overwhelming army and provide a bulwark against what was considered a greater threat: in this case Communist Russia and a greater madman, Stalin. You know, like using a certain fascist in the Middle East to keep at bay a nation ruled by mullahs.
Slashdot Mirror
All ages have false idols and images. I think our Gauloises smoking friends across the pond mean that we Americans recognize our false idols and images as unreality and we just dont care for the difference between authentic and simulated experiences. Our simulation of consumer freedom is paramount: to substitute one repertoire of received styles for another. Cool was the name used to replace the void of vacated freedom and authenticity conquered an age ago. Just ask Thomas Frank and his friends at the Baffler.
From a rational point of view the choice between languages like C++/Java, scripting languages and hybrids (like Visual Basic) is merely a question of where management wants to invest their intellectual capital: spend large amounts of time at the beginning in modeling and specification OR roll and code and get it out on the road. Bypassing specification (for instance the necessity of designing data structures in C++ and Java because of data typing) the "speed" associated with Scripting languages after all slows down due to future (in most business cases, inevitable) redesign requirements. The prejudice against scripters grows from the experience of grappling with a scripted program's resistance to change over time and by different hands. The whole object based force in programming arose because of the necessity of developing evolving requirements over long periods of time and by many hands. Dot notation, which is common to both scripting and compiled languages, is simply syntactical simplification and does not equal the use of data structures. The presence of data typing in a language, which slows initial development, is the very reason for the necessity of implementing data structures. The correctness of data structures in both design and implementation provide ongoing proof cases for asserting (in the debugging sense of the word) the validity of inputs and outputs which will vary widely over the lifetime of an application. The issue revolves around the primitive distinction between languages which require data types and those that don't. The validity of source code which does not rely on typing is many times difficult to obtain. Of course if the lifetime of an application is short and it's problem set narrow to the overview of one programmer then validity is not relevant. A problem exists when robust and scripting occur in the same paragraph because I have no idea how you would measure and reasonably certify the robustness of reusable scripted code without types besides of course by just making the claim.
I dont accept the appeasement argument. WWII developed out the mistake the Western democracies made in using a madman build an overwhelming army and provide a bulwark against what was considered a greater threat: in this case Communist Russia and a greater madman, Stalin. You know, like using a certain fascist in the Middle East to keep at bay a nation ruled by mullahs.
Stay home and watch this great video: Tough Clamp: Develop Your Sphincter Muscle in 21 days. Its hosted by those TV movie critics. Now I know why.