1 |
On Monday, September 15, 2014 07:21:18 AM Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> On 15/09/2014 00:21, James wrote: |
3 |
> >> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes: |
4 |
> >> |
5 |
> >> You are a C man. |
6 |
> >> Working with bash must be .... excruciatingly painful |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Ah yes, State machine design; not much fittering around with |
9 |
> > escaping silly little symbols..... |
10 |
> |
11 |
> python fixes all of that (see below) |
12 |
|
13 |
I like state machines. |
14 |
|
15 |
> > sh/csh/bash/scripting is not bad. I just 'lift' the tough stuff |
16 |
> > from others mostly. With some codes, like Java, you read |
17 |
> > and follow 90%, then there is another code to find and read. |
18 |
> > It never ends, on and on and on.... Then instead of one choice |
19 |
> > you have 3 or 4 choices....... Maven is a whole nutter beast.... |
20 |
> > Why it is becoming so important is still a wee bit confusing to me. |
21 |
> > [1] http://maven.apache.org/ |
22 |
> |
23 |
> maven is important to enterprise users because Java is important to |
24 |
> enterprise customers. Java is important to them because huge numbers of |
25 |
> apps that enterprise likes use Java. It's not so much the language |
26 |
> itself (any language is almost as good as any other) but the whole Java |
27 |
> ecosystem. I see maven like this: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Maven is to Java what CPAN is to Perl |
30 |
|
31 |
Actually, enterprise customers just want big packages supplied by the vendor |
32 |
without having to do any further heavy lifting. That allows them to complain |
33 |
to the vendor when the product doesn't work as expected. (Never mind it works |
34 |
as designed) |
35 |
|
36 |
> > I'm just not use to that sort of world. In embedded, you |
37 |
> > over design before you begin coding. You do not have megabytes |
38 |
> > of lib stuff to find and read and test the dozens of variants. |
39 |
> > |
40 |
> > I like to code. It's debugging the stuff that drives me crazy(er?)..... |
41 |
> > These kids have no respect for us old farts. I remember when |
42 |
> > "numerical recipies in C" [2] was the stuff. Now it's C++ or Java. [3] |
43 |
> > I have a book on my shelf (where it belongs) on "Concurrency State |
44 |
> > Moels & Java" by Magee and Kramer, 1999 - Wiley. What a hoot! |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I'm looking for two books, and modern kids laugh at me when I mention |
47 |
> them. How little they know :-) |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Wirth: Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs |
50 |
> Knuth: The Art of Computer Programming (I want the whole complete set of |
51 |
> this one) (in dead tree form) |
52 |
|
53 |
Did you try google? :) |
54 |
|
55 |
> > I'm still looking for "Numerical recipies in Bash" ? |
56 |
> > Ju gonna code that up? |
57 |
> |
58 |
> You'll have to write that one yourself, I doubt anyone has done it yet :-) |
59 |
|
60 |
Are there enough "old farts" left to generate sufficient interest? |
61 |
|
62 |
> > Howz your Fortan 90? I did not even know there was such an |
63 |
> > ugly beast [4]. I thought Fortran was outlawed decades ago. |
64 |
> > I guess nothing ever dies. Physicists have to have a language |
65 |
> > to themselves. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> I believe Fortran is still very much alive and well in engineering and |
68 |
> physics - 40 years of number crunching code doesn't just go away by itself |
69 |
|
70 |
Fortran and Cobol refuse to die... |
71 |
I still encounter them regularly. |
72 |
|
73 |
> > Anyway, my_python is comming along...... |
74 |
> > (pist, don't tell anyone, but I almost, (almost) like python). |
75 |
> |
76 |
> My most favourite language of all time! |
77 |
> Runs about as fast as reasonably complex shell code, but because it's an |
78 |
> interpreter and not executed directly by the shell, there's no auto |
79 |
> globbing and weird bash expansion going on. Effect = all that |
80 |
> mind-bending psychosis-inducing escape nonsense just falls away. |
81 |
> printf reduces to something a mortal human might even grok. |
82 |
> control structures look sane - no fi, esac, or elif. Do's and while's |
83 |
> look like real do's and while's |
84 |
> |
85 |
> I could go on, but you get the idea :-) |
86 |
|
87 |
Python is nice, I should really look into that sometime. |
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
Joost |