\_ When it comes to VB and Perl it seems there is a large number of
\_ new programmers coding in these language.
\_ People who do not know much about the standards, techniques and
\_ quality of design and documentation.
...as well as not knowing those things exist. These folks quickly get
to spaghetti coding, and if left for long enough, sometimes manage to
score Gordian Knot. I'm getting the willies just thinkin' about the
first Knot I saw....
\_ I have noticed the colleges set up VB classes to be prerequisites to C/C++
\_ classes. They also do not spend much time explaining techniques
\_ and structured programming. Most of the time spend in class in
\_ a community college was taken by learning the syntax and not the
\_ programming techniques.
*sigh*. At least it'll keep the market slim for those who are good.
\_ These constructs can be used in any code. cpp (c preprocessor) can be
\_ used to format other files and other languages.
Yuh, but you don't see it used much other than that. M4 nice too....
\_ ***Ah, the much touted 'do the right thing' functionality. [Now if we
\_ ***could only get a politician to have that...] It depends, I guess, on
\_ ***what you think a programming language is for and how you rate it and
\_ ***what you're trying to do with it.
\_ C allows for ugly programming too but it is powerful and functional enough
\_ to make look nice.
Either I'm not understanding, or I'm gonna have to strap on my Holy
War Armor and start smiting you. How does the power + functionality
of a language imply niceity? Or were you saying that you take the
time in C to make the code look nice because of the power +
functionality thereof?
\_ I am not trying to limit programming I just like
\_ functionality
\_ which allows for the programmers to limit themselves. I am not a supporter
\_ of legislating programming standards either.
Mmmm...standards; the best thing about them is the number of them to
choose from.
\_
\_ FWIW, I have four categories of programming:
\_
\_ 1) Trivial. Simple is as simple does.
\_ 2) Moderate. Can be complex, but is maintainable.
\_ 3) Spaghetti. Can be simple, but poorly thought out. Typically
\_ moderate level of difficulty or higher with poorly
\_ thought out steps.
\_ 4) Gordian Knot. Don't ask questions as to why I have a category 4.
\_
\_ I like your categories however it is missing one:
\_ 1/2) MODULAR combination of the first and the second one.
1/2) is a form of 2) in my book (particularly the 'maintainability'
chapters).
David
(text/plain)