On Java and C++

[wellstone9912]

Java programmers seem to always be whining about how confusing and
overly complex C++ appears to them. I would like to introduce an
explanation for this. Is it possible that Java programmers simply
aren't smart enough to understand C++?

This is not merely a whimsical hypothesis. Given my experience with
Java programmers --- the code they write and the conversations they
have --- Occam's Razor points to this explanation. For example,

"Oooh I'm confused about the difference between pointers, references,
and objects! How confusing!"

"Oooh operator overloading confuses me! The expression x + y is so
confusing, who knows what's happening with that? If x and y are
complex numbers, what the hell could x + y mean?"

"Oooh multiple inheritance is so confusing! Though I am both a father
and a programmer, I still find it so confusing how the same object can
be two different things! How confusing!"

"Oooh and virtual bases are so bizarre! I am a student --- myself
'the father' is the same student as myself 'the programmer' --- but
nonetheless the idea of virtual bases is absolutely confounding and
confusing to me!"

Again, Occam's Razor is a valuable tool here. In deciding among
competing hypotheses, choose the simplest one. To impartial observers
of indoctrinated Java programmers, the explanation is simple indeed.

[Remon van Vliet]

"Tomás" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:v%******************@news.indigo.ie...

I wouldn't mind if programming became so easy I could be replaced by a
monkey. I can always find something else interesting to do, and it
would do miracles for society if software development projects became
effectively free.

Computers are great, but they lack one thing: Intelligence. If you want
them
to do something, you've to tell them EXACTLY what way to do it -- they
don't
take any hints.

Monkeys have intelligence, but not as much of it as we humans do --
therefore we'll always be the better programmers.

So, maybe if you wanted cheap programming, you could approach the monkey
industry, and if you wanted high-quality programming, you could approach
the
few remaining human programmers (assuming the monkey industry kicks off).
-Tomás

Pft, the ingredients to make human programmers obsolete arent quite that far
fetched. You take one really smart brain surgeon to map and understand every
single human neuron, have one really smart nanotechnology scientist to make
quantum computers more practical, and a decent programmer to implement a
simulation of a human brain and voila. Teach that human brain to program and
we're pretty much done. Insert the Terminator theme music here...

[Bent C Dalager]

In article <44***********************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Remon van Vliet <re***@exmachina.nl> wrote:

Pft, the ingredients to make human programmers obsolete arent quite that far
fetched. You take one really smart brain surgeon to map and understand every
single human neuron, have one really smart nanotechnology scientist to make
quantum computers more practical, and a decent programmer to implement a
simulation of a human brain and voila. Teach that human brain to program and
we're pretty much done. Insert the Terminator theme music here...

The fundamental problem with this approach is that what you have
created is effectively just another human. It may have a different
shape than old-style humans, but it is a human all the same. And like
the rest of us, it will not like to be used as a slave: it will want
freedom, it will want luxuries, and it will want citizenship.
(Refusing it these perks will lead to rebellion sooner or later.)

The only potential benefits are that 1) this new human may require
less resources to maintain than the original and 2) perhaps you can
make it smarter/faster/more suited to the task/whatever.

The benefit of (1) above is imaginary in the majority of cases since
most westerners today expect to make a whole lot more money than just
what it would take to keep them alive anyway (a couple of servings of
rice a day really isn't very expensive and doesn't justify annual
wages of $10,000+). Human Mk2 will feel the same way.

The benefit of (2) is plausible - you would effectively get a species
of uber-workers that can do all sorts of tasks for us (and they would
be well paid for it). If you thought protests about immigrants taking
away all the jobs are bad, you ain't seen nothing yet :-)

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bc*@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

[Domagoj Klepac]

On Fri, 12 May 2006 08:53:57 +0000 (UTC), bc*@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

Pft, the ingredients to make human programmers obsolete arent quite that far
fetched. You take one really smart brain surgeon to map and understand every
single human neuron, have one really smart nanotechnology scientist to make
quantum computers more practical, and a decent programmer to implement a
simulation of a human brain and voila. Teach that human brain to program and
we're pretty much done. Insert the Terminator theme music here...

The fundamental problem with this approach is that what you have
created is effectively just another human. It may have a different

The only potential benefits are that 1) this new human may require
less resources to maintain than the original and 2) perhaps you can
make it smarter/faster/more suited to the task/whatever.

Don't know about benefits, but I'm sure that a new human would have
MORE bugs, being a v1.0, and not being patched for thousands of years,
as opposed to the "natural" human. ;) Having said that, I really don't
know what's the point in recoding something that already exists.

But, cloning on the other hand... now that's the promising technology.
You take what already exists, and code only extensions, or patch what
needs to be patched. And than you make clones and train them to make
clones... the only problem is that I hear it's possible to patent
genes, so you might be building on propriety software.

And of course there are those pesky human rights activists, who would
make sure that once you really create the superior product, you cannot
use it, or even buy it, without employing it... which is nuts, I mean,
think of it - you create it, you program it, and then you must pay to
run it...

Domchi

--
Ouroboros ltd. - http://www.ouroboros.hr
Antispam: to reply, remove extra monkey from reply-to address.

[Oliver Wong]

"Domagoj Klepac" <no*******************@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:46********************************@4ax.com...

the only problem is that I hear it's possible to patent
genes, so you might be building on propriety software.
Worse yet, you might owe your very existence to proprietary data. What
if someone patents my genes before I get a chance to? Would I have to pay
royalties for continued use of my genes?

And of course there are those pesky human rights activists, who would
make sure that once you really create the superior product, you cannot
use it, or even buy it, without employing it... which is nuts, I mean,
think of it - you create it, you program it, and then you must pay to
run it...

This isn't too uncommon. Consider the PHP programmer who is contracted
to write a pay-subscription site, and then wishes to access the site himself
once the product was delivered to the client? The PHP programmer is supposed
to pay to use his own creations. Of course, he could have added in a
backdoor to gain free access.

So add back-doors to your cloned humans; have them claim that they WANT
to be used by you, and any activists who denies them that right is threading
on their rights as humans.

- Oliver

[atbusbook]

Right on, Real programers use real languiges like C[++], Perl, Scheme,
Python, Ruby

[atbusbook]

See my post
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fa4d03de7c6802

[atbusbook]

Bjarne Stroustrup has this to say:

"The connection between the language in which we think/program and
the
problems and solutions we can imagine is very close. For this
reason
restricting language features with the intent of eliminating
programmer errors is at best dangerous."

[Timo Stamm]

at*******@aol.com schrieb:

Right on, Real programers use real languiges like C[++], Perl, Scheme,
Python, Ruby

Real programmers know how to quote with google groups.

[scott urban]

On 2006-05-03, Bent C Dalager <bc*@pvv.ntnu.nowrote:

In article <kn********************************@4ax.com>,
JustBoo <Ju*****@BooWho.comwrote:

>>
(...)

Wow, given that list I would feel more comfortable paying a monkey to
code my apps. Why pay a human just to follow the banana around when I
can get chimps to do it for less.

The day we have a programming language that is so good a monkey could
produce quality software with it is the day we have won.

Until then, we'll just have to get by with incremental steps along the
way.

Hmmm, if you want a job where you don't have to think, there are plenty
to choose from. Wishing that would happen with programming seems
strange - the activity is all about thinking.

And I'm not monkeying around.