The future

[Jon Harrop]

Google trends indicates a shift in programming languages towards garbage
collection, interoperability and safety:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=c%2B%...ate=all&sort=0

Which languages are C++ programmers moving on to?

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/product...rp_journal/?u6

[red floyd]

Jon Harrop wrote:

>>

Which languages are C++ programmers moving on to?

Guess what? They aren't F#.

Quit trolling, please.

[Default User]

red floyd wrote:

Jon Harrop wrote:

>

Which languages are C++ programmers moving on to?

Guess what? They aren't F#.

Quit trolling, please.

Gark. Is it your intention to reply to EVERY post he makes? What's the
point of people killfiling the idiot if you do that?


Brian

[JohnQ]

"Jon Harrop" <jo*@ffconsultancy.comwrote in message
news:46**********************@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

>
Google trends indicates a shift in programming languages towards garbage
collection, interoperability and safety:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=c%2B%...ate=all&sort=0

Which languages are C++ programmers moving on to?

"Small C++" (if I live long enough). No, it will not be inherently
garbage-collected.

John

[Jon Harrop]

Default User wrote:

Gark. Is it your intention to reply to EVERY post he makes? What's the
point of people killfiling the idiot if you do that?

What if he is me?

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/product...ournal/?usenet

[Gianni Mariani]

On May 23, 6:42 am, Jon Harrop <[e-mail]:

Google trends indicates a shift in programming languages towards garbage
collection, interoperability and safety:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=c%2B%...eo=all&date=al...

Which languages are C++ programmers moving on to?

Text based languages are so a thing of the past.

I have a vision that in the future, code will be developed using a
more graphical and collaborative model. "Source" control will be
managed using different views and releases are done by combining
views. The source propagates and merges automatically. Lifetime
management is implicit since the compiler implements the appropriate
form because it has full knowledge of the code and how to reap
objects.

I'm working on it now.

[JohnQ]

"Gianni Mariani" <gi*******@mariani.wswrote in message
news:11*********************@u30g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...

On May 23, 6:42 am, Jon Harrop <[e-mail]:

>Google trends indicates a shift in programming languages towards garbage
collection, interoperability and safety:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=c%2B%...eo=all&date=al...

Which languages are C++ programmers moving on to?

Text based languages are so a thing of the past.

I strongly disagree. And of course, if that was true, there would not be any
anymore.

>
I have a vision that in the future, code will be developed using a
more graphical and collaborative model. "Source" control will be
managed using different views and releases are done by combining
views. The source propagates and merges automatically. Lifetime
management is implicit since the compiler implements the appropriate
form because it has full knowledge of the code and how to reap
objects.

I'm working on it now.

That's a great idea. It sounds revolutionary. Good luck with that. I, OTOH,
think that there is nothing wrong with a text-based programming and that it
is even most desireable for a number of reasons (which I won't get into much
here and now). I agree that the evolution of the languages has proceded so
slowly that they have to change drastically or become relics. I too think
that the best way to show the power of text-based programming languages is
to create a new one because "all the current ones suck so bad" ;). Seriously
though, they are tied to past (as you say) but a new language is enabling to
new software. C++ should probably go into "maintenance-only mode" and much
of the resources should go toward a new language. (Oh, wait... perhaps
"designed by committee" language is exactly what I don't want another of!).
I too spend most of my "programming time" drawing boxes, cirles and arrows
etc., but I don't see it going from there directly into machine language for
the same reason I don't like programming to "big black boxes": it becomes to
proprietary (it's like working for someone else: ewwww!). A "modern"
language that enables that paradigm as an intermediate form is still the
core if you ask me: pick your poison, graphical development or hand coding
directly with the language.

John

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Gianni Mariani:

On May 23, 6:42 am, Jon Harrop <[e-mail]:

>Google trends indicates a shift in programming languages towards garbage
collection, interoperability and safety:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=c%2B%...eo=all&date=al...

Which languages are C++ programmers moving on to?

Text based languages are so a thing of the past.

I have a vision that in the future, code will be developed using a
more graphical and collaborative model. "Source" control will be
managed using different views and releases are done by combining
views. The source propagates and merges automatically. Lifetime
management is implicit since the compiler implements the appropriate
form because it has full knowledge of the code and how to reap
objects.

I'm working on it now.

:-)

They did a fair amount of work on graphical program composition in the
eighties and early nineties, e.g. at Brown University (if I recall
correctly).

The problems have always been that a graphical representation isn't
expressive enough for other than canned programming, and that DWIM
(which they also did a fair amount of research on) isn't clear and
unambigious enough for people, let alone computers.

Conventional languages like C++ do better because they're really what
you end up with when the graphical approach is taken to the limit:
reducing the size and meaning of the basic symbols (letters, digits,
punctuation) to get better expressiveness and more meaning per unit of
screen area, and entering and combining them via simple keypresses...

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Jon Harrop]

Gianni Mariani wrote:

Text based languages are so a thing of the past.

I have a vision that in the future, code will be developed using a
more graphical and collaborative model.

I agree.

I'm working on it now.

Me too. :-)

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/product...ournal/?usenet

[Howard]

"Jon Harrop" <jo*@ffconsultancy.comwrote in message
news:46**********************@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

Gianni Mariani wrote:

>Text based languages are so a thing of the past.

I have a vision that in the future, code will be developed using a
more graphical and collaborative model.

I agree.

You're not looking far enough into the future. The computer of the future
must do what I *want* it to do, without me telling it *how*.

I once heard this said of our profession: "Like dentists, if we programmers
really do our job right, we'll eventually put ourselves out of work!"

-Howard

[Lionel B]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 18:18:07 +0000, Howard wrote:

"Jon Harrop" <jo*@ffconsultancy.comwrote in message
news:46**********************@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

>Gianni Mariani wrote:

>>Text based languages are so a thing of the past.

I have a vision that in the future, code will be developed using a
more graphical and collaborative model.

I agree.

You're not looking far enough into the future. The computer of the
future must do what I *want* it to do, without me telling it *how*.

The future is here already. I tell the computer what I want it to do by
instructing it (in very precise terms, obviously) via a human/computer
interface commonly known as a "high level programming language". If I
have thus specified accurately, unambiguously and precisely enough what I
want the computer to do, it does it. Beyond that, I don't tell it "how"
to do it.

--
Lionel B

[Jon Harrop]

Lionel B wrote:

The future is here already. I tell the computer what I want it to do by
instructing it (in very precise terms, obviously) via a human/computer
interface commonly known as a "high level programming language".

Does it have first-class lexical closures?

If I
have thus specified accurately, unambiguously and precisely enough what I
want the computer to do, it does it. Beyond that, I don't tell it "how"
to do it.

So you're using a purely declarative language without mutability?

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/product...ournal/?usenet

[John Harrison]

Jon Harrop wrote:

Lionel B wrote:

>The future is here already. I tell the computer what I want it to do by
instructing it (in very precise terms, obviously) via a human/computer
interface commonly known as a "high level programming language".

Does it have first-class lexical closures?

>If I
have thus specified accurately, unambiguously and precisely enough what I
want the computer to do, it does it. Beyond that, I don't tell it "how"
to do it.

So you're using a purely declarative language without mutability?

God you are a tit.

john