Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 20:46 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development I like this one: "By definition, a program is an entity that is run by the computer. It talks directly to the CPU and the OS. Code that does not talk directly to the CPU and the OS, but is instead run by some other program that does talk directly to the CPU and the OS, is not a program; it's a script." Here's the other eleven.
Thread beginning with comment 533723
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 22:43 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

2. If it's not native, it's not really programming


Wow, second item and the bullshit-o-meter is already peaking. This is just stupid elitism.

The "While" construct should be removed from all programming languages


Yeah, because making things artificially difficult is awesome. What language has "Repeat" anyway? Does he mean "for"?

Developing on .NET is not programming. Its just stitching together other people's code.


I'm nor a fan of nor do I program in .net but this is just more elitist nonsense.

The use of try/catch exception handling is worse than the use of simple return codes and associated common messaging structures to ferry useful error messages.


And the stupidity just goes on and on. We don't have to code the same way we did in the 80's anymore. Not every language is C. It's called progress.

Object Oriented Programming is absolutely the worst thing that's ever happened to the field of software engineering.


More elitist nonsense.

Making invisible characters syntactically significant in python was a bad idea


Yes, readable code is a very bad idea. Or not. Brackets are apparently awesome though.

Classes should fit on the screen.

Because everyone's screen is the same size. So if I have a wide monitor standing on the side it's perfectly ok to have a class that's really long?


This whole thing is just some C programmer(s) that got butthurt.

Edited 2012-09-03 22:48 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by satsujinka on Tue 4th Sep 2012 01:04 in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
satsujinka Member since:
2010-03-11

Yes, we are living in the future, so stop using exceptions and use maybes/tuples/multiple return values. Or really anything that doesn't turn your execution order into spaghetti.

Also the OOP opinion was actually very reasonable. The author was lamenting the simple fact that OO is too vague. It's hard to have rationale, scientific discussions about something when the proponents of it can't even agree what they're talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Tue 4th Sep 2012 04:12 in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Or really anything that doesn't turn your execution order into spaghetti.


Good thing that is impossible to do with return values, eh?

The author was lamenting the simple fact that OO is too vague.


Seriously, what does it matter? As long as the OO model in the language you use makes sense and you know when to use and when not to.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sherriffwoody Member since:
2012-05-25

As some new to code. I'd like an explanation or a link to one, sounds interesting..

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by sergio on Tue 4th Sep 2012 02:01 in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

"2. If it's not native, it's not really programming


Wow, second item and the bullshit-o-meter is already peaking. This is just stupid elitism.
"

Pseudo-elitism.

Any interpreted functional language like LISP or Haskell is way harder and sophisticated than most native procedural language like C or even ASM.

Reply Parent Score: 4