>>37 Bash is an ugly relic
Agreed its scripting is fuck ugly
Agreed Use a better language
Agreed, I have found PHP CLI quite decent scripting, it's cleaner than Perl and of course better than Bash.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-17 19:17
>>39
>And that "control its development environment efficiently" is BS, considering that every professional programmer I personally know uses an IDE.
AGE FOR FUCKING TRUTH.
Unix geeks and posers LEAVE THE HALL!!! GET OUT!
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-17 19:51
>>40
Hah. Do you earn money by coding, or just wank about it?
*nix has a lot of nice tools, but they're only rarely useful. You'll be spending the vast of your time in an editor or IDE. Of course, if you're getting paid to be productive, you'll use an IDE. Plain editors are for masochistic "mucho" men with too much spare time on their hands.
And if *nix is such a hot IDE, why do so many people like Eclipse?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-17 20:28
Eclipse is sexay. Especially when you hack material from /s/ into the GUI.
"And if *nix is such a hot IDE, why do so many people like Eclipse?"
Hey, many many people eat bigmacs and drink cocacola everyday. Some of us still prefer filet mignon and wine.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 3:19
"And if *nix is such a hot IDE, why do so many people like Eclipse?"
Hey, many many people eat bigmacs and drink cocacola everyday. Some of us still prefer filet mignon and wine.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 3:36
Hey, many many people eat bigmacs and drink cocacola everyday. Some of us still prefer filet mignon and wine.
I think the correct analogy is, some people like to go to restaurants, while others prefer to dick around all day making a meal in their kitchen.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 5:42
More than an analogy, my point is that you can't use popularity to argument the quality of anything. Bigmacs are popular, hollywood movies are popular, gossip magazines are popular, etc.
Software development is a process that goes beyond "writing code". A software developer should control his computer in the most efficient way, which still is the command line, unless you are some corporative drone who makes the same thing all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 7:08
A software developer should control his computer in the most efficient way,
No, a developer should program. System administrators worry about "controlling the environment". Yes it's true that developers do this too, but that isn't their job. Last I checked, I rarely drop to command line to do things to my code, even though I don't even use an IDE. What the fack are you doing? Are you in the correct vocation?
which still is the command line,
For what? And what does this have to do with that "mastering bash scripting" jizz?
unless you are some corporative drone who makes the same thing all the time.
You just keep jacking off there, mate. Wait until you get to the real world, where the bosses claim never to measure your performance but secretly are keeping charts of your LOC and bugs rates (it's gay, but that's reality). Then you'll either you'll adapt, or you'll fuck around with your system for a while, produce very little, and somehow conveniently get sacked.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 7:44
Yes, whatever. If you accept to have your work measured on LOC your life must be really miserable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 9:00 (sage)
That's the best reply you can come up with?
I'm snoring here, man, I really am.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 9:10
Well, did you expect me to take your "in real life" authority argument any seriously? :)
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 9:15
Perhaps it was a bit fagtastic, even if it's true. Ignore that then, and deal with the rest.
Seriously, I program a lot, and I'm one of those sick elvis users. Here's what I use the shell for: grep, wc, strip, man, info, ldd, gcc, make, cvs, and the usual ls/cd/mkdir/blah. I can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to do something fancy in shell, and most of the time I use perl to do it instead.
Yes, I know Bourne, but it's still fugly. It's also useless to all the windows coders out there. Sure, they can get it, but most won't. Let it rot like it should be.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 9:56
True, it is not often that a programmer needs to do fancy shell scripting. However when you need to and can do it, it can save a lot of time. I guess you are right, if you know perl theres no need to do much bash scripting (I still find it more straight to do certain stuff).
My point is that there is a need for scripting languages that let you interact with the operating system easily. Each time I find myself developing for windows I find it terribly painful to do certain tasks that would take 10 seconds in a unix environment. That definetly wastes my development time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-18 15:45
m2c: I write shell scripts mostly for automating tasks that I would otherwise have to do by hand. They never get more complicated than that (I don't think I've ever used a loop, hardly ever a comparison). If I need an actual program I'll use an actual programming language.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-19 11:41
>>56 Each time I find myself developing for windows I find it terribly painful to do certain tasks that would take 10 seconds in a unix environment.
That's because you're working with plain, out of the box Windows. You can get three different sets of command line tools (Microsoft's Windows Services for Unix | native ports of GNU shellutils/textutils/diffutils/binutils/*utils | Cygwin), and a decent scripter, like Perl, PHP CLI, or Python. (Of course, bash and other Unix shells are also available if you want "that".)
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-26 13:44
In no order in particular:
Common LISP (so you'll have a feel for what the gurus of yore used, and for what has been lost since), Haskell, C, C++ (just to get to know your own weaknesses), C# (for GUI work, and/or ASP.NET stuff), Perl (the anti-Haskell, and to learn regexping) and finally csh or bourne shell scripting (to understand that not everything requires writing an actual program).
That's only six though. I'll have to get back on this later.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 4:51
C, one assembly (RISC is easier), one functional language (Haskell, Scheme, Objective Caml), one scripting language (Ruby, Python, Perl), one OO language (C#, Java, C++)
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 10:12
>>60
You mentioned OO languages but the only one I see in your list is under scripting languages.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 16:42
I'm fairly sure you'll agree any decently competent programmer can pick any language he wants and get resonably proficient in it within a 4 months time frame. As an example, i learned Java in roughly 3 weeks with prior knowledge of c/c++ and lisp only. Now i will agree my code was horrible after 3 weeks for i knew the core of it. After 4 months, my java was cleaner then the seniors i was working with. (I confess the seniors sucked horribly) Providing you know basic assembly, a functional language and OO concepts, the language is irrelevant. Use what is best to do the task at hand, that's the only rule of thumb.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-30 4:46
Yes, a nice healthy blend of programming paradigms is good rather than any specific language.
I'd like to note, as a point of interest, that (in my experience) many people *think* they know OO concepts, but really don't. Most of them are in or just recently out of school, but wouldn't understand an example of polymorphic behavior if it smacked 'em in the ass.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-30 7:42
>>62
It also depends on the complexity of the language and how much does the standard APIs suck. I had to learn Pascal when I entered uni (yes I know); knowing C, I did it in a weekend, and next monday I was complaining that the teacher wrote such poorly thought of loops and was not exploiting the language. When I wanted a dynamic website, I learned PHP in 5 days, although I admit it's very easy to botch and my code sucked for the next two weeks, until I saw somebody else's sucky code and found out how to write PHP that doesn't suck (which, unfortunately, does not seem to be a common skill among many PHP programmers).
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-01 23:49
PHP is not cleaner than perl. It is more ambigious, it is harder to see anything in PHP. Also it is a broken language and I'll kick you in the nutz if you talk about it anymore. The rest of the world doesn't talk about PHP as a solution to anything so I don't see why you faggots do.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 0:56
The syntax is cleaner, the API isn't.
Perl is the exact opposite.
If only they'd speed up with Perl6 so Perl had both.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 1:39 (sage)
+ Perl is the Devil.
+ PHP is the Devil.
+ Python doesn't suck as much as the previous two.
+ Ruby's was written by a bunch of Nips.
+ C/C++/Java/C# are a necessary evil if you want to eat
+ Scheme/Haskell/ML/Prolog will make you a better programmer
...end of story. You don't need to know 10 langauges. Stick to learning different paradigms and gain some adaptability.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 3:11 (sage)
Prolog will make you a better programmer? Having made several non-trivial programs in it, don't mind me if I guffaw a bit over that one. It's good for certain domains of program, but it won't make you better.
I suspect a lot of people here are posting languages that they've never used, or only made toy programs it, yet think it's cool because everyone else does. For example, how many people here have actually used Ocaml and Lisp for anything beyond several thousand lines?
Maybe one or two here. The rest don't know what they're talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 6:10
how many people here have actually used Ocaml and Lisp for anything beyond several thousand lines?
Anything requiring several thousand lines of Lisp had better be at least as intelligent as HAL, or you're using too much code.
Write me some real-time, highly-distributed, highly-reliable process control software in Lisp, then get back to me. Or in Scheme. Or Haskell, Ocaml, Prolog, etc. The fact that non-procedural/imperative paradigms exist and are "cool" doesn't automatically make the procedural/imperative paradigm evil.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 19:48
I did in OCaml you fag. Ocaml guaranteed me real typesafety (except for Marshall) and it allowed me to write code which was far more effecient than C. You can even disable or neuter the garbage collection if it bothers your realtime sensibilities.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 20:04
>>67
More ambiguous and harder to read than Perl? You are clearly ignorant of PHP (and possibly Perl), or you work in marketing.
And I never said or thought it was the solution to everything. No language is good for everything; anybody thinking language X would be, is folly.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 21:21
>>73
You can't write code that's "more efficient than C", for the same reason that you can't write code more efficient than assembly. It just means that you're not good enough at doing it in C (which is, admittedly, quite hard if you get into spots that the compiler has trouble at).