Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Nov 2009 23:39 UTC
General Development Even though I'm not a programmer, I still know that while some programmers like the idea of graphical programming, whereas others shun the concept completely, opting for a more hands-on approach. While Microsoft is quite active in the field of graphical programming, the company's own high-level coders aren't very keen on the idea.
Permalink for comment 397159
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: As always, it depends
by ovigui on Mon 30th Nov 2009 19:45 UTC in reply to "As always, it depends"
ovigui
Member since:
2007-01-31

Just looking at the quote...

Premature optimization is the root of all evil. - D. Knuth

Don't forget the counterpart:

On the other hand, we cannot ignore efficiency. - Jon Bentley

In my opinion it is really a problem of using the right tool for the problem. Choosing the right language for the level of efficiency you expect to need.

I personally think that the whole "let´s invent a language that solves everything" is the wrong approach. The right approach is being able to jump, inside the same system, from higher levels of abstraction to lower levels, while trying to keep it as simple as possible. For example I really like the Objective C way (even though it is not perfect) of being able to write using a flexible object engine, while jumping to plain C in some places... and then going down to intrinsics/assembler were needed. And being able to go even higher-level with things like F-Script to prototype and make tests is not bad either.

BTW: The title is quite sensationalist with that "Notepad" reference. It would be more like emacs/vim + shell + scripts. Or just another the monolithic way (IDE) versus the set of tools that work together... and you will basically find the people of the *N*X way in the second (the right ;) ) side. But even then, in the article linked they were talking about a completely different issue.

Reply Parent Score: 1