| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Comments:
<0> I guess you have to stay sharp.
<1> Solamente: I'd say microsoft is utterly useless in almost every thing, not just web apps.
<0> duplex-: I won't go that far.
<0> VS 2005 is a very good compiler suite.
<0> Windows Vista is simply kick-***.
<1> Compared to what? Gcc? har!
<0> (Even it it's beta-1 state).
<0> ASP.NET is the best web technology in existence, IMO.
<0> .NET in general... ehh... better than Java.
<1> I would say ruby on rails.
<0> And SQL Server is probably the best product they have going.
<1> perl, php, and ruby on rails.
<0> Office can bite me. And it usually does.
<0> But they're not clueless top-to-bottom.
<1> Yeah but postgresql is a lot better than MS's SQL server.
<2> yeah, i really like ASP.NET
<1> I'm an open source fanatic, however.
<2> mono...DOH!
<0> You know how you sometimes say about a techology, "Man, if I were designing one of these, it would look just like X."
<0> I actually did that. A web-dev technology I wrote in 2001 (for Java, no less) had a lot of similarites to ASP.NET.
<0> Except, like, theirs was actually better.
<0> So I guess I feel at home in it. They did a lot of stuff right.
<2> agreed
<2> the thing just makes sense
<3> lol @ duplex-
<2> unfortunately, the standards compliance needs to be beefed up a bit
<2> haven't used 2.0 yet
<1> I don't know much about .net. I'm not too huge into web development either. But from what I've seen of ruby on rails, it's amazing.
<0> I studiously avoid the web control stuff in ASP.NET (1.1 or 2.0) that generate non-standard markup.
<0> If it won't generate strict valid XHTML, I won't use it.
<0> But it's the underlying design that I like, not the web controls.
<0> I write my own web controls, and I love it.
<2> have i mentioned again, today, how much i hate #regions?
<0> They are teh ****.
<0> I saw your comment earlier about Hungarian notation in C#.
<0> I... wow. I can't imagine that.
<0> And I'll bet $100 it's type-based Hungarian and not usage-based.
<0> (In other words, the wrong and useless kind.)
<3> Heh we no know what teep and osage off-shore
<3> Solamente eexplane
<0> What, are you channeling Tatoo from Love Boat?
<0> (Tattoo, Tatu, whatever.)
<3> I recently fell out of love with all lambda-calculus based languages
<3> After I saw DARWIN/ASP
<4> oh
<4> out of
<4> haha
<3> cn28h you are so uncouth
<4> :D
<5> So, you no longer like functional programming techniques?
<5> Or am I walking into the middle of a conversation here?
<3> Asriel no
<3> Not scalable
<5> Define scalable
<3> In terms of expressing complexity vs. comprehension
<2> heh i like this #region name
<2> PrivateGlobalVariables
<6> time to head to the pub
<5> Wow. You're about the first I've ever seen to say that
<0> hehe peterhu
<0> IRR: Um. Okay.
<3> Chrome and leather vawjrOTL?
<5> functional languages generally express complex concepts in a simpler fashion than procedural
<5> Not every concept, of course. but them
<3> Asriel for small expressions yes
<0> O rOO
<2> yeah it's all type based, Solamente
<2> arrayListFoo
<0> Or OO, rather.
<5> define "small expressions"
<0> Oh dear lowered.
<2> ddlBar
<2> (drop down list)
<5> I can write algorithms that are basically 100 lines of C in 1 line of Haskell
<0> That is so utterly stupid.
<0> And useless.
<2> bFlag
<3> MORON = (badparents->badschooling->MORON).
<5> sorry?
<3> Thats a small exp. and its understandable
<2> that's odd, static_cast<MORON*>(JBlitzen) compiles
<2> well, that's not really that odd
<5> How does that add weight to your argument IRR?
<3> peterhu did you and JBlitzen recently fall apart?
<2> yeah, he's not giving me enough man love
<3> Asriel it doesn't. Thats the point.
<3> Good I'd leave you at that Asriel
<0> You're not making sense, IRR
<7> lol
<3> Solamente if I did, he'll keep on arguing
<0> And he'd likely be right.
<2> also, if i see any more useless allocations (Foo f = new Foo(); f = Bar();) i will also scream
<5> Mainly because I really don't understand your point of view. I'm not saying it's wrong, just strongly hinting
<2> arrrgh
<5> It's widely accepted that functional languages are the more expressive. Especially mixed mode functional/imperitive (e.g OCaml)
<3> The point of view is that when trying to express complex concepts in DARWIN, you have to use inconvinient constructs thanks to the functional approach
<5> Whats DARWIN?
<3> Its a functional language
<5> And why write off an entire computational approach based on one language?
<3> Based on lambda calc
<5> Technically, everything is based off the lambda calculus, for some definition of "based off"
<5> It's a universal model of computability
<3> There is a difference between model and calculus
<5> Now, if this Darwin has basically taken Churches semantics and called it a language, yeah, it'd be bloody hard to work with
<5> And inconvinient constructs are a fault of the language, not the underlying theory
<5> You're statement is silly. "I hate visual basic, ergo every procedural language ****s"
<7> lol
<3> Asriel try to express a packet sniffer in DARWIN
<3> Or something much smaller. Like a queue.
<0> What Asriel is trying to *say* is that DARWIN is not the issue.
<3> Ok, take any functional language
<5> Functional programming language always have "issues" with IO, to some extend. I advise reading up on monadic techniques
<5> Which ameliorate the problem to a great extent
<3> See. The thing is, they are cute, but not always practical.
<3> You can have pretty little examples of "expressiveness" and what not, but they don't always work.
<5> No, not always practical. Which is why, for "real world" programming, a mixed mode language (or good monadic framework) helps
<0> IRR, you can say the exact same thing about any paradigm.
<0> Ditto procedural and OO.
<3> Solamente to a much lesser extent, yes.
<0> To exactly that extent.
<0> That's exactly why I like C++. I can mix and match paradigms freely.
<5> *nod*
<3> But C++ is posed predominantly as an OO experiment
<0> It's posed as that, but that's incorrect.
<0> Stroustrup certainly doesn't pose it that way.
<3> Ask Stoustrup
<0> Read his site.
<3> What does he say?
<0> That C++ is *not* an OO langauge.
<0> It's a multi-paradigm language.
<0> He bristles at the OO characterization. You can fairly hear it in the text.
<0> You really should check out this web thing, IRR.
<3> No, I am uncomfortable with graphical interfaces
<3> Typical american. how is "He bristles at the OO characterization." different from "C++ is posed predominantly as an OO experiment"
<8> read meyers, too
<5> Very different, IRR
<8> i forget which book, but he breaks it down really early into the different paradigms it supports
<8> i think it's the 3rd edition of effective c++
<0> IRR, I'll say it again. Read the papers on his site.
<3> Anyone who says that the main focus of C++ is not OO cannot be taken seriously
<0> And as for how they are different: Stroustrup is not the one posing C++ as an OO language.
<0> I thought I made that clear.
<8> IRR I don't believe that at all
<3> I mean everyone knows that. Its not another conspiracy theory is it.
<0> "[14:48] <@Solamente> Stroustrup certainly doesn't pose it that way."
<0> Nor does any other decent expert in the language.
<3> Solamente well I am not impressed with your comprehension of his position.
<8> irr
<8> look:
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#c++
#mirc
t1a27
SEXY 1TO1
Casper undernet
#linux
#linuxhelp
#mirc
whats _bstr_t in vc++
#php
|
|