|
Methinks a concept like H would be too much for us. And the H++ already means that H was never good enough to be called H in the first place.
So this H should enable absolutely all concepts ever devised for programming in at least a similar efficacy as the language which best encompasses that particular concept. As a start off point, H would need an extremely efficient GC while still allowing as easy manual allocation as (at least) C - AFAICS that alone would make it in the realm of fiction.
But it's nice to dream isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
irneb wrote: But it's nice to dream isn't it? If it weren't for the dreamers we'd still be clubbing each other with sticks in caves. Now we can do that virtually on the internet.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to think a club was the original H. Must've solved a lot of problems in those days.
But jokes aside ... you've got a point: Aim for the stars, and just perhaps you'll learn to fly!
|
|
|
|
|
Pff.. H is so yesterday, try J!
|
|
|
|
|
Judging from some of the comments that have been posted, it seems that most of you struggle with hypothetical situations. The survey says suppose that this language can do everything and be used everywhere, would you use it everywhere? Most of you never really got past the first part, as you are commenting about whether a language like that could exist.
That is not the crux of the question (in my opinion). Presumably, from the description of the language, it would be the best tool for every task, so really the question boils down to, do you like using one language or do you prefer the variety of using multiple?
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
I agree: hypothetically it would be great to be able to use a single language for every task. However, imagine how complex such a language would have to be: would be very difficult to get to grips with all of it so you would only ever use small parts of it; e.g. the parts that apply to the task at hand or your specialty. Not so different from now, really.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. And what about trying to teach beginners? I believe there will always be a need for entry-level languages.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're wrong. Languages evolve to fit the environment: if they didn't we would all be coding in COBOL because it was the "perfect language" for it's environment at the time.
Clearly, it doesn't fit well in the modern world, so it has been replaced by languages which fit the current environment better.
If we accept that, then we accept that whatever language we use today as a "perfect language" (even if such a hypothetical language doesn't exist) will be seen as useless garbage by the next generation (or next Thursday, whichever comes first).
So do we have a choice? No - we have to learn new stuff (and old stuff) or we can't do our jobs.
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre.
Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
Today every bank in the world uses COBOL, and very lately someone has migrated some systems to java, but the principal reason was not that the languages evolve, but the schools don't bring COBOL developers anymore. You have to use a ouija to ask COBOL questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Mullikin wrote: Presumably, from the description of the language, it would be the best tool for every task
I don't see where it says that it's the best tool, only that it is capable, with no claim of expertise. And Chris' post mentions EF, which is quite limited and no substitute for actual database experience.
"Suppose your favourite language" -- that's (currently) C#, which I can use on Windows, maybe on Android (if I wanted to pay), but not on OpenVMS. So I use C on OpenVMS and have minimal experience with Java for Android. I would very much like to be able to use C# on all of these platforms, but I don't need it to "do everything", certainly not SQL. So while I would like to have one primary language I would still expect to use other languages (SQL, etc.) for special tasks. And, while the poll doesn't specify, I don't want to have to pay for it -- having to pay would eliminate it from "favourite" status.
|
|
|
|
|
What "language"? It's asking for your "favourite" language. There's too much leeway in that, very few languages are similar enough to throw them in the same bag, let alone seeing them as equal.
You have to ask yourself: Why do these various languages even exist? Is it just because some guy wanted to screw with the entire programming community? Or was it that the existing stuff had issues which he tried to solve?
|
|
|
|
|
For a true geek, an opportunity to learn a new programming language is fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Not when the due date is tomorrows morning!
|
|
|
|
|
Sometime it would be good to use different language for different task that best suits.
Thanks and Regards,
RK_PRABAKAR
|
|
|
|
|
and in C# for iOS.
So I got crushed with the realities in different "univerrsums"
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: C# for iOS
while I haven't used it I think that the folks at Xamarin[^] would say differently.
you want something inspirational??
|
|
|
|
|
interesting thanx.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Look here[^]
Rev 2. states 'add support for Ada, ObjC and ObjC++ languages'.
So, Obj-C(++) is available for Windows.
brisingr_aerowing@Gryphon-PC $ rake in_the_dough
Raking in the dough
brisingr_aerowing@Gryphon-PC $ make lots_of_money
Making lots_of_money
|
|
|
|
|
If you use Xamarin you can code C# for Apple applications.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Eber wrote: Xamarin you can code C# for Apple applications And Mono[^] for Linux (and apparently even Mac).
|
|
|
|
|
...but eventually I would get bored.
Also it would be simple and easy path to go, but as I know most programmers quite often stray far away from that path. Sometimes because of ignorance and sometimes voluntarily, you know to just to keep it fresh.
Mislim, dakle jeo sam.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're serious about your profession, doesn't matter which, you feel the need to be in control of things.
As a software developer you need to know what's going on behind the scenes so you can better optimize the process and know how to fix any issue.
It really doesn't matter the language, as long as it's performant for the task.
The problems start when you try to fit everything in the same bag and give away control just to have the comfort of always working on the same environment.
It might not be an issue in small or simple projects but I came to learn that there is no such thing as small and simple in software
Time will come when you need to optimize or change something and you can't because you have no control over it, and this is when you start hacking the tool
Bottom line, I prefer to give away comfort and have control.
|
|
|
|
|
...outside of desktops, possibly including tablets.
When you move away from them to dedicated devices, you tend to lose the huge processing power, the vast memory, the massive storage. Then you have to make concessions, and code in a different way - there are times in embedded work even now when hand crafted assembler is the only option, because using a compiler would require more hardware and another $5 on the build price per unit.
Be nice to do - but I don't think it's as easy as that!
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre.
Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
This survey was prompted by a discussion on the pain required to learn a new language and technology. What if, once you learned a technology you could stick to it for everything.
"Everything" is a term where a certain amount of fuzzines is required because doing something as simple as powering a website requires you to work in HTML (either directly or indirectly). Sticking to visual designers with event handlers on the backend to hide the actual HTML/CSS would skirt around this, but then the question effectively becomes "would you give up control in one technology if it meant you could stick to a single language?".
The Entity framework is another example of where allows for SQL in C#.
I'm guessing there are a number of languages that can effectively be considered "use everywhere" languages once include the tools that come with them. Java, C#, Ruby come to mind. The Entity framework in .NET replaces your need to know SQL, and PowerShell in Windows replaces the need for VBScript or shell commands to script the Windows shell. Throw in language converters and there are plenty of options that allow you to be monolinguistic.
But would you want to?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The Entity framework is another example of where allows for SQL in C#.
Which is fine if you don't know SQL (and you use a supported system), but not a good substitute for actual SQL expertise on your team.
P.S. Would it also perform the tasks my CommScript[^] was designed for?
"Use the right tool for the right job." -- Scotty, et al
modified 19-Aug-13 0:24am.
|
|
|
|