Jim,


A very large SNIP

>Oh, it does, and just fine actually. I just can't resist telling my side to someone who feels so differently on the idea that syntax is the only difference (of any substance) between computer languages.

And it is. This is fact, not fiction as you'll see.

>>Well then let me give you a "fact". Programming isn't about the language. It's about implementing solutions to problems. Care to disagree? If so, I'll be happy to engage.
>
>I can't blame you for not seeing or remembering it, George, but here is a quote from a message I wrote replying to a point by Mike Stewart (see message #589713 for the whole thing): "Good design isn't done in any computer language". Hopefully that not only sums up my view of the point, but also clearly agrees with yours.

It goes beyond design.

>>
And SNIP again
>>
>>
>>Again, this focuses on the language rather than the problem.
>
>Sorry, George, but it is you who has attempted to shift the problem. The discussion is about languages - new ones and the ease of learning them! Design, at least in our discussion and actually through most of this huge thread, has hardly been mentioned.
>You know, I wasn't even going to reply until I reread and this line sunk in.

I seriously wish you hadn't.

>Please keep to the topic rather than to shift it to another totally different issue. I don't appreciate having it implied that I do not know what design is or, as bad, that I don't know how to design (if I really think that language is what I use to design).

But I am as you'll soon see.

>>Types? I'm not sure I understand. VFP is an exception in that it is loosely typed. Most languages are not. Is it Microsoft's fault that this is the case?
>
>You confuse "different source 'types'" with 'loose/strict typing'??? I meant .bas, .cls, .frm, .vbd etc.

And what does that have to do with programming, Jim? Zip, nada, nothing. The source code has nothing to do with it.

>
>Sorry George, but it isn't. Programming is programming. Design is design. Programming uses a language that a computer program can discern and turn into actions inside the computer. Design is the process of describing a (new, sometimes) way to meet business objectives, often employing programmed applications and often employing procedural innovations of a manual nature.

This is as an irrational statement as I can imagine. Design and programming are inextricably linked. In fact, I cannot recall any book, scholarly or otherwise, that I've read that didn't devote considerable space to design. "Business objectives" are just another way of saying "problems". "Design" is how those problems are addressed and partioned into segements that are solved on an individual basis.

Since, however, you accuse me of changing the subject, let me talk about strictly programming. Programming is governed by a series of principles. To ascribe to your position, the principles are language dependent. In fact, they are not. They are language independent. You apply the same principles regardless of the language you're working in. Only the clueless would claim otherwise. That's fact, Jim, like it or not, fact.

During the late 1980s, I went back to college to study computer science. During a period of one year, I had to work in BASIC, Pascal and COBOL on two different platforms, PCs and mainframes. This meant that I had to learn two new languages within that time. No big deal. I can't imagine the professors (who were PhDs, BTW) allowing someone who simply didn't want to learn one or more of the languages to allow them to do so. In fact, the series of course I took on programming principles were taught on two radically different languages: Pascal and COBOL.

The bottom line here, Jim, is that programming has nothing to do with language. That was my point, and it remains my stance.

And Snip again

>Your whole reply has the odour of belittlement and you use an old device - switching the topic and then lecturing as if the intended reader is clearly deficient in an even more basic topic than the one originally at hand.
>If you intend to continue in this way, don't bother! When you'vr done this with me in the past, and you have, I simply stopped replying. You hit far too ow this time and a reply was mandated.

As I recall, and I could be wrong, it was you who chose to reply to a message not directed to you. I was done with the topic and it was you who re-joined.