From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 1996 - 11:04:30 MST
At 11:54 PM 12/3/96 +0100, you wrote:
>Somehow the body of this message didn't make it the first time around so
>here we go agin.
>
>> From: James Rogers
>
>> This is sort of true, but not entirely. Assembly code, for example, was
>a
>> true improvement. ........
>..
>..
>> I almost always get more
>> development work done with a good text editor than with a fancy graphical
>> environment.
>>
>> -James Rogers
>> jamesr@best.com
>>
>
>James i feel like we are talking past each other. I don't doubt that the
>best development tool right now for complex jobs is c++ or the like. All
>i'm saying is that there must be a better way, and when we find that we can
>develop even stronger tools and so on.
>
>All your arguments have been used before when the change went from
>assembler to c and from c to c++. They only last until the better tool show
>up up and is being used by the majority of developers.
>
>I don't think the thread will lead to anything new so i will pull out of it
>before it gets to be a religious debate.
>I will try to think up a graphical interface for an object oriented
>language. When i'm done doing that i will post a message with a link to it.
>Then we have something concrete to discuss.
>
Actually, I *do* understand what you have been saying. My point is
essentially that the complexity that you perceive is in fact a useful tool.
This complexity is unnecessary and can be eliminated only for a relatively
small class of problems. Most general classes of problems require complex
languages like C++.
I tell you what: If you think of a good graphical means for implementing an
object oriented language, I will have someone program a tool for it.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:52 MST