ok what are the rules
-
...and thinking about the inspiring prose you used to describe your proposed wall between the VB and C# forums: Were you home schooled? Or did you just play Zork a lot?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Were you home schooled? Or did you just play Zork a lot?
Can't it be both? ;) Yeah, i was homeschooled, and as a result of this spent a lot of time reading pretty much everything i could get my hands on, which gives me a fairly large amount of source material to draw on when i'm in the mood to goof off a bit. I don't consider myself a particularly good writer, of course - it takes me far, far too long to put my thoughts down, and a lot of editing before i'm ever happy with it. Still, i can put out some entertaining documentation on occasion...
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In a mathematical proof for example there’ll be both English and formal symbolic notation. It’s not a matter of one being better then the other: just that they both have their strengths and weaknesses and you have to know when to use which.
Agreed. But note something important here. The framework of such a proof is almost always a natural language, like English. The formulae are written in a specialized sub-language of the natural language. In other words, English is "bigger" than mathematical notation. Not better, bigger. It's easy, for example, to think of American English including the way Americans typically write numbers or simple equations - it's hard to imagine the reverse. And that's what we're proposing regarding Plain English (and which we've spelled out in other places). Our Plain English Machine, the PAL 3000, will understand not only English, but various forms of formulae and other programming languages as well. But the machine's native tongue will be English. And we're emphasizing this part of the problem because, frankly, the other parts (how to parse equations and compile C#) have already been solved.
The Grand Negus wrote:
The framework of such a proof is almost always a natural language, like English.
In my experience (some maths at University before I switched to computers) this isn't the case: the English spells out a vague high level description of the problem and highlights points of interest, cites references and such. The actual body of the proof is in symbolic notation. In mathematics this is almost always the case.
Steve
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
we can write a program better, faster and cheaper in Plain English than in any other language, the answer is a definite "yes"
Uh huh, sure :rolleyes:
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
PaulC1972 wrote:
The Grand Negus wrote: we can write a program better, faster and cheaper in Plain English than in any other language, the answer is a definite "yes" Uh huh, sure
Well, we should know since we've written major programs in various assembler languages, in Fortran, COBOL, Pascal, Prolog, LISP, C, C++, C#, a number of our own languages, and Plain English. And Plain English is our language of choice. Not because we invented it, but because of all the languages we've used, it works the best. Think a minute - if it didn't work the best, we wouldn't have released it, like we didn't release the other five languages we developed over the years. When those languages proved to be only marginally better (or sometimes even worse), we went back to the drawing board.
-
Shog9 wrote:
but i've no interest in trying to make everything an object.
Good. But how about making everything Plain English? It's the language millions use every day to program their dogs!
The Grand Negus wrote:
But how about making everything Plain English?
To be honest, I wouldn't mind taking a look. But then, there are at least two other languages on my "idle time todo list" already, and they've both taking a back seat to other things lately (i'm baking bread right now; somehow, that's more satisfying today ;) ).
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...
-
PaulC1972 wrote:
The Grand Negus wrote: we can write a program better, faster and cheaper in Plain English than in any other language, the answer is a definite "yes" Uh huh, sure
Well, we should know since we've written major programs in various assembler languages, in Fortran, COBOL, Pascal, Prolog, LISP, C, C++, C#, a number of our own languages, and Plain English. And Plain English is our language of choice. Not because we invented it, but because of all the languages we've used, it works the best. Think a minute - if it didn't work the best, we wouldn't have released it, like we didn't release the other five languages we developed over the years. When those languages proved to be only marginally better (or sometimes even worse), we went back to the drawing board.
The Grand Negus wrote:
of all the languages we've used, it works the best
Can it solve a problem like the Traveling Salesman Problem in the worst case scenario, in linear time complexity?
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The framework of such a proof is almost always a natural language, like English.
In my experience (some maths at University before I switched to computers) this isn't the case: the English spells out a vague high level description of the problem and highlights points of interest, cites references and such. The actual body of the proof is in symbolic notation. In mathematics this is almost always the case.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In my experience (some maths at University before I switched to computers) this isn't the case: the English spells out a vague high level description of the problem and highlights points of interest, cites references and such. The actual body of the proof is in symbolic notation. In mathematics this is almost always the case.
You've got to be misunderstanding what I mean by framework. Let's try a different example. In what language are all the articles on this site written? C? C++? C#? VB? No! They're all written in English with examples written in these sub-languages. Back to the other example. My calculus book is written in English. It is not a German calculus book, it is an English calculus book, though it probably contains the same or similar formulae. The "framework" is English: the title, the preface, the chapter headings, the introductions, the explanations of the formulae, the problem statements, etc.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But how about making everything Plain English?
To be honest, I wouldn't mind taking a look. But then, there are at least two other languages on my "idle time todo list" already, and they've both taking a back seat to other things lately (i'm baking bread right now; somehow, that's more satisfying today ;) ).
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...
Shog9 wrote:
i'm baking bread right now; somehow, that's more satisfying today ).
Well, at least the bread isn't baking itself! But how about that dog analogy? Why don't people use, say, C# to program their dogs? Why do they always just go for the thing they know best?
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
of all the languages we've used, it works the best
Can it solve a problem like the Traveling Salesman Problem in the worst case scenario, in linear time complexity?
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
PaulC1972 wrote:
Can it solve a problem like the Traveling Salesman Problem in the worst case scenario, in linear time complexity?
As far as I know, that's an unsolved problem in any language. But a Plain English solution to the problem will be as good as any other - and definitely easier to read (even without comments!).
-
PaulC1972 wrote:
Can it solve a problem like the Traveling Salesman Problem in the worst case scenario, in linear time complexity?
As far as I know, that's an unsolved problem in any language. But a Plain English solution to the problem will be as good as any other - and definitely easier to read (even without comments!).
The Grand Negus wrote:
a Plain English solution to the problem will be as good as any other - and definitely easier to read
Let's see it then.
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
a Plain English solution to the problem will be as good as any other - and definitely easier to read
Let's see it then.
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
-
Shog9 wrote:
i'm baking bread right now; somehow, that's more satisfying today ).
Well, at least the bread isn't baking itself! But how about that dog analogy? Why don't people use, say, C# to program their dogs? Why do they always just go for the thing they know best?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Why don't people use, say, C# to program their dogs? Why do they always just go for the thing they know best?
Most people i know don't really bother programming their dogs at all. As a result, their dogs are not particularly well-behaved. The few i know whose dogs actually listen to them appear to know quite a lot about dogs in general, and their dogs in particular, and spoken commands make up only a small portion of how they communicate (posture, eye contact, etc. make up the rest. As an aside, i've been told that my hat is offensive to dogs... hides my eyes or something).
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...
-
- Get a grip on the logic of what you are trying to accomplish before you start. ie. Understand exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish
- Use the right tool for the job. Ignore anyone who says you *must* use such-and-such a tool or technique.
- Learn the concepts of programming. Memory management, design patterns, organising your code into the correct peices (objects, procedures, files, namespaces)
- Understand the concepts of the technology you are using. Object oriented, web based, crazy anonymous functions. Learn the tools.
- Write pretty code. Forcing yourself to write good looking code will force you to take a look at the structure, the comments, the way it's broken up, and as a consequence it will be easier for someone else to read and check
- Write comments in code. Relevant comments. Lots of useful, relevant comments.
- Learn to test and debug
- Learn how to rip chunks out of your code and replace it as the specs change. And they will change. Never, ever believe that there is such a thing as a final spec sheet.
- Keep learning.
- Be good to your Mother.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
5. Write pretty code. Forcing yourself to write good looking code will force you to take a look at the structure, the comments, the way it's broken up, and as a consequence it will be easier for someone else to read and check
Right on! I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this. :mad:
Matt Gerrans
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
5. Write pretty code. Forcing yourself to write good looking code will force you to take a look at the structure, the comments, the way it's broken up, and as a consequence it will be easier for someone else to read and check
Right on! I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this. :mad:
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this.
Could it be that management or bosses pressure them away from writing pretty code?
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In my experience (some maths at University before I switched to computers) this isn't the case: the English spells out a vague high level description of the problem and highlights points of interest, cites references and such. The actual body of the proof is in symbolic notation. In mathematics this is almost always the case.
You've got to be misunderstanding what I mean by framework. Let's try a different example. In what language are all the articles on this site written? C? C++? C#? VB? No! They're all written in English with examples written in these sub-languages. Back to the other example. My calculus book is written in English. It is not a German calculus book, it is an English calculus book, though it probably contains the same or similar formulae. The "framework" is English: the title, the preface, the chapter headings, the introductions, the explanations of the formulae, the problem statements, etc.
The original example was mathematical proofs which are – for the most part – symbolic. While your calculus book will have lots of English text the real guts (such as the chain rule, the product rule and the proofs) will be symbolic. Not to diminish English as it plays an important, but no mathematician wants to do his math in English. Take algebra for example: this is a set of rules which allows one to mechanically manipulate a symbolic equation to produce another. An example is the distributive law which stated symbolically looks something like this: a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c This means if I have: 6*107 I can use this rule as follows: 6*107 = 6*(100+7) = 6*100+6*7 = 600+42 = 642 Such rules can be stated in English but doing so is of little help.
Steve
-
Okay. Send me a version in some other language that you think is good - and hopefully short - and we'll get you the Plain English equivalent.
It is thoroughly described by wikipedia[^] and you can find plenty of implementations with Google, for example this Python library[^] contains an example. More to the point, why don't you add your Plain English implementations (and stats) to The Great Win32 Computer Language Shootout[^]? Or at least, if the travelling salesman problem seems like too much work, there are several easier choices at this site that you could use and whose solutions should be small enough to post in this forum.
Matt Gerrans
-
this is my second job (3 month passed) my first job (fox pro for accounting solution or can say immediate reports no structure for code or any thing else no training instead i had to go to client location from the first day i work from there only no previous experience of fox pro they give me one program which was used to calculate interest and they give me source code yes pc given to me was better so i had one day to learn fox pro basics and i did that of course not whole but the basic things required for me to work there thanks to msdn and internet connection ) before joining my first job i did a .net course (3 months). My .net teacher refer me to my current job i joined this job (my salary was hiked almost 5 times and i got a team (one more student of sir) to work with again we got no training however it took a bit longer to understand few needed concepts of directx and webcam yes articles from code project were the only source of info i could had that time (no books of directx with c# available that time in EE edition and i had not enough money to buy the costlier books so i will say thanks a lot CP now the questions of Joel 1. Do you use source control? i did not know this thing before so i will implement it ASAP 2. Can you make a build in one step? Yes as we are two we work together 3. Do you make daily builds? no i didn't 4. Do you have a bug database? i will make it ASAP (today itself) 5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code? well most i fix them after writing the code cause if i am implementing some thing new i don't know that it will work or not after my basic idea starts to work then i take some free time and think throughly to find bugs before implementing any further 6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule? yes we complete one thing then take target for the next one and accomplishes it on time however i have to give many sleepless nights 7. Do you have a spec? yes i build the outer line on the day one but don't have any fine specs 8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions? no not at office and we have to complete our first project before 30th so i am working from my home 9. Do you use the best tools money can buy? no this is the part we lag most we have two computers at office one we work upon is p4 1.2 ghz with 256 mb ram (i wonders how .Net is running on it with XP and directx SDK loaded) second computer is worse we cant use it for programming / testing it is only used for browsing (p3 .5 ghz 256 mb ram) we don`t have those dual monitors or lcd e
Amar Chaudhary wrote:
1. Do you use source control? i did not know this thing before so i will implement it ASAP
Subversion Server (SVN) is free and works very well. http://subversion.tigris.org/[^] But before you do anything read through this online book. The information here is absolutely necessary to understand how it all works. Version Control with Subversion[^] Here is the link to the TortoiseSVN project (the local client, used to connect to the Subversion Server). http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/[^] If you’re looking for a local repository as in it you only have one computer, TortoiseSVN will suffice for both client and server. Tortoise has a chm file with fairly detailed instruction on its usage (including setting it up as client and server). If you get stuck I would be happy to try and help. Good luck, hope this helps.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
-
there were few discussions about rules for programming few days ago i am working in a company which is newly started and only two programmers there and no one to guide except CP so what are the rules which you follow and think i should also follow :):)
I have an oversimplified rule that I use. Keep what works for you and your team and throw the rest out. I apply this to time management, documentation, specifications, error reporting, development methodologies, etc, etc. Like I said, it's very simple but I also helps keep me from wasting time.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Because it's free advertising in the lounge, or did you forget already? Who stands to get paid if he actually does decide to use PEP?
It depends, as you should know. If he buys it to use as is, we get $100. But where's the hypocrisy in that? We've never hidden the fact that our product is for sale. And if he decides to develop on top of it, he'll get a copy to work with for free and then he'll sell his product - in that case, he'll benefit financially as well. Finally, if he becomes a full-fledged Omsosian living and working together with us, drinking milk from the same cows and eating corn from the same fields, I really don't think the question applies - except that, again, I see no hypocrisy there.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But where's the hypocrisy in that?
Who said anything about being a hypocrite? It's still exploiting the lounge however.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
How about this argument. We wrote an exceptionally efficient native-code-generating compiler/linker with interface, file manager, dumper, text editor, and wysiwyg page editor using exclusively procedural code and not once during the development did the project suffer from disorganization, unreliability, or unnatural expression and not once during the development were we ever even tempted to think in an object-oriented paradigm. If that doesn't do it for you, I don't think a handful of posts here will help.
You counter Jeremy with this argument, can't you accept his challenge?
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
PaulC1972 wrote:
You counter Jeremy with this argument, can't you accept his challenge?
Yeah you beat me to it. It's obvious he can't.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I challenge you to flex your brain power and show all of us real (not abstract) reasons as to why you think this is the case. And I even double challenge you to do without talking about PEP. Keep in mind. C is my favorite language, and I believe procedural code can be very organized. But, I also believe OOP has many merits and don't hesitate to use it if the project calls for it. So, you have your challenge. Should you take it or leave us up to you, but since you act like an expert in this field I'd wager this would be like falling off a log. Remember, abstract ideas don't count, those are too easily manipulated to serve an agenda.
How about this argument. We wrote an exceptionally efficient native-code-generating compiler/linker with interface, file manager, dumper, text editor, and wysiwyg page editor using exclusively procedural code and not once during the development did the project suffer from disorganization, unreliability, or unnatural expression and not once during the development were we ever even tempted to think in an object-oriented paradigm. If that doesn't do it for you, I don't think a handful of posts here will help. When I first started teaching database design many years ago, I wrote into my materials an appendix explaining why the hierarchical and network approaches to database management were less desirable. I soon found, however, that once students mastered the simple and obvious relational approach taught in the course, the appendix ceased to be of interest; so I delete it. I think the same thing applies here. If you have a particular example where you think object-oriented thinking works better than a procedural approach, however, I'll be happy to dissect it.
The Grand Negus wrote:
How about this argument. We wrote an exceptionally efficient native-code-generating compiler/linker with interface, file manager, dumper, text editor, and wysiwyg page editor using exclusively procedural code and not once during the development did the project suffer from disorganization, unreliability, or unnatural expression and not once during the development were we ever even tempted to think in an object-oriented paradigm. If that doesn't do it for you, I don't think a handful of posts here will help.
Won't fly, for one it's abstract. For two, you can do the same thing with an OOP paradigm.
The Grand Negus wrote:
When I first started teaching database design many years ago, I wrote into my materials an appendix explaining why the hierarchical and network approaches to database management were less desirable. I soon found, however, that once students mastered the simple and obvious relational approach taught in the course, the appendix ceased to be of interest; so I delete it. I think the same thing applies here.
We're not talking DBs here. Not to mention, DBMSs use a relational flat scheme, so this is apples to oranges.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If you have a particular example where you think object-oriented thinking works better than a procedural approach, however, I'll be happy to dissect it.
I'd be happy to, but only after you stop avoiding my challenge. Don't pull the "you first" card. I challenged you, not the other way around. If you can't accept that then you obviously don't know enough to defend your stance or otherwise you would have. And for the second time, leave the abstractions out of it. I'm sure someone with your superior intellect can understand this.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]