Top 10 MUST know programming languages if you

Top 10 MUST KNOW programming languages if you want to be a programmer!

DISCUSS

>>80
I had failed, but the board is fixed now

You know, it also depends on your environment and what you plan on doing. "Big" is kind of vague. The more common languages that are used for these kind of things ("Big") are C++ and C. Java and Python are gaining popularity as well, though.

C/C++ is generally considered the best because it is versatile and produces lightweight binary files, but it's the hardest to learn.  For new users, Visual Basic is usually the best starting point.  Java is considered the best for cross-platform developing and RAD and is used in many web pages for embedded aplications, but it's a resource hog, thus making it unpopular in the long run.  For code in web pages, the most commonly used language for scripting is javascript, whereas PHP is generally considered the best serverside coding language.  Other good languages to learn are C#, Python, vbscript, and ASP.  It could also be useful at times to know a little SHTML, though it is usually a security risk to use SHTML code.

Java for RAD? I think not.

>>84
Quite. In fact I'm learning VB now (don't laugh, it's for a job) and it's actually quite hilarious just how poorly the Java API is designed in comparison. Seriously Java, you shouldn't be losing to Basic of all languages.

If you wish to be a programmer, any 10 languages will do.

If you want to be a GOOD programmer, then you need to learn languages that teach you all sorts of programming concepts (like closures or code efficiency) you can't easily invent yourself. These concepts will help your programming, no matter what language you eventually end up programming in.

You also need to learn languages you can get something Real done with. Some languages are only good for learning, others only for implementing Real programs (in other words, they have large, efficient and well tested libraries and bindings for doings all sorts of desirable stuff, Fortran would be a good example). Some are good at both, and yet others aren't really good at either.

Some languages I would recommend for you to learn are, in no particular order:
The C Programming Language
Java
Common Lisp
Perl
Prolog
Haskell
Assembly

You know I've been meaning to learn Haskell, but it seems so inferior to Lisp. I mean what the hell does a functional language need syntax for anyway?

(to (cut (down (on (the parenthesises)))))

>>85
what's wrong with the Java API?  right now i've been doing some serious programming with Java and the only thing i can think of that is "bad" is that its learning curve is a bit steeper than VB.  Otherwise Java has been well documented and most of all the code has been very clear.

>>89
And you say you've done serious programming? The Java API is a gross example of overengineering. It's overly and compulsively complicated, overly and compulsively generalized, overly and compulsively object oriented, overly and compulsively unintuitive, and absolutely impossible to memorize and be more productive with, as you would by using other languages APIs. See how ridiculously complicated is to open files, run a shell, or sort.

Java's API is ridiculously ugly. It's a hideous monster.

There are plenty of horrid APIs out there, but when the standard API of the language itself is that bad, you know you have problems.

People who like that mess either are doing some heavy lifting in the enterprise, or (far more likely) just don't know any better.

Java's simply grown into an industrial language and acquired all the warts along the way.  If Scheme or OCaml were to achieve the sort of userbase that Java has, they'd grow equally unweildy in their own ways.  It's simply a consequence of the process.

>>92
That's wrong. The Java API is a result of Sun saying "hey, the way to make a popular language is to have an extensive, well documented API." Which is all well and good. The problem comes when they charge ahead without knowing jackshit about language design. Eventually they hire people like Guy Steele to try to fix the mess, but since they insist on keeping all the old interfaces intact, you just get confusion.

Short version: it's not userbase => api, it's api => userbase.

The Java API is a result of Sun saying "let's make it stupidly overcomplicated, because the Emperor's new clothes are OO"

>>92
As someone who used to write programs in Java 1.0 and 1.1, allow me to say you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

It was sick to begin with. It has gotten better in some areas, and worse in others. Sum total: it's just as shitty now as it was to begin with. Maybe a little worse.

>>90
no i said "i'm doing."  as i am just for the first time truly learning Java by diving in.  You aren't an old C programmer by chance eh?  as i would like to agree with you, the person i am working is a competent Java programmer and seems to get by all the problems you seem to be pointing out.  do you really know the language or did you dabble and toss it out because it didn't fit in your paradigm?

>>96
Yeah you can get by the problems - by writing 3 times the amount of code.

Three times as much code isn't necessarily the deciding factor. I'd rather have three times as much clear and comprehensible code.

But Java is pure evil: not only do you need to write more code than <insert any dynamic language here>, but it's really ugly code too. I'd rather use C++, which is really saying something.

I'd rather have three times as much clear and comprehensible code.

Paul sez: http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html

Does succinctness = power? This seems to me an important question, maybe the most important question for anyone interested in language design, and one that it would be useful to confront directly. I don't feel sure yet that the answer is a simple yes, but it seems a good hypothesis to begin with.

11GET

shit i meant 100GET this sux :(

>>99
I agree with that too. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in >>98.

However, increasing succinctness is not always better. After some point it becomes a detriment. Take, for example, production code where you'll be hung out to dry if you try anything fancy. Not only is it harder to read, but you'll begin exposing compiler bugs and undefined behaviours of the language (yes, I'm referring to C++ here).

Sometimes easy-to-understand code is longer than the fancy "zomg look at my 1337o trick!" Proof in point: perl can be either readable or unreadable. Guess which version is longer?

>>89
You obviously haven't witnessed the 'awesomeness' that is JSF. Or JSR 168. Or Spring. Or <insert stupidity with cool marketing name here>.
Do you enjoy marketing drivel?
Do words speak louder than actions for you?
Do you blindly take statistics pulled out of clogged toilet as truth?
Do you enjoy wasting your time for no purpose?
Do you want to be a consultant?
If you answered "yes" to all 5 questions, then Java is for you!

Want support? sure, if you take it up the ass from Sun---sorry, I mean become a 'partner' and agree not to promote any competing products no matter how much better they are...oh look, VENDOR LOCK IN, OH SHI-

>>95
Goddamn right it has always been a shit pile. If you deal with this shit on the 'enterprise' level, what ever the fuck that means, you'll see that it has gotten a lot worse. Java solutions require clustering for any kind of availability because something always broken, oh the countless times I've had to fix the shit sucking appservers in a week.

| I'd rather have three times as much clear and comprehensible code.
Pity that 3 times extra code consists entirely of pointless factories, singletons, more factories, object lookups, redirections and yet more factories. Oh, and an extra method call. That requires factories.

Do the right thing, write 100% Pure Javaless programs.

But Java isn't all bad! There's so much stupidity in the Java world that it's become a stupidity black hole, sucking stupiditity into itself make everything else less stupid; which is a GOOD thing!

Can someone please explain what these fucking bloody "patterns" are? I've seen a huge growth in "patterns" in the OO world the past few years, but every time I look at them I ask myself, "WTF is the big deal?"

Is OO becoming the domain of "shit, I'm too stupid to make my own solution for the problem so I'll copy it out of a bullshit software engineering textbook (that'll put a ferret on speed to sleep)"? Seriously, what the fuck is the big deal? Is it just a bunch of tards who can only cut'n'paste and love buzzwords, or have I completely missed the clusterfuck? Does it actually help, or is it the Java retards trying to fix square pegs in round holes?

>>104

Nobody claims that the patterns are "new" or "original".  On the contrary, they've been assigned the status of patterns because so many people have come up with them independently over the years.  The placing of patterns in a textbook by the GoF is simply a formalization and recording of common knowledge, as well as the assignation of common names.  This way people can speak about patterns with colleagues and co-workers and share a common vocabulary-- a very valuable thing when you're part of the group of folks working on a project that 1M+ LoC.

FWIW, patterns exist very independently of Java, also.  The GoF's examples in their '94-'95 book, all deal with C++ and Smalltalk.  The actual work defining the patterns occurred in the early-to-mid nineties, prior to Java's popularity.

So no, patterns aren't about Java 'tards fitting square pegs into round holes.  They're about large groups of developers sharing a common vocabulary when discussing design in an OO world.

If there was exactly one book I should read with regard to patterns, what is it?

>>106
The GoF book that >>105 was talking about of course.

BTW if you find yourself using the Singleton pattern a lot, give up and use a functional language instead.

>>106

Hit up ISBN 0-201-63361-2 .  GoF is the shorthand for Gang of Four, the four guys who collaborated on that book.

Just so I can be a dick, I love bash, and those who like csh better can go fuck themselves with their curly brackets.

zsh

Saying you like bash more than csh is like saying you like horse shit more than cow shit.

They both suck.

>>111
And what shell do you use, oh enlightened one? Or do you make direct calls to glibc?

>>112 is locked in a dank cage, surrounded by thick bars of steel. There is a large and ferocious lion here, salivating. What do you want to do? _

a) Pretend you're dead and get mauled.
b) Scream like a woman and get killed.
c) Fight back, get mauled, and then get killed.
d) Accept your fate, and try to enjoy the once-in-a-lifetime sensation of being eaten alive.

Do you get it, Einstein? Just because several sucky options are the only options available doesn't make them suck any less. I use one of them too, but that doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

>>113
What about killing the lion?

>>114
Ever see a lion in real life, mate?

A person doesn't stand a chance against even a small lion. Not unless you're Bruce Lee and get in an amazingly lucky kick.

You still suck dick for not appreciating the beauty of unix shells, fucker.

And anyways, bash is not really hard to work with, it works pretty nicely. I suppose it's like everything, diss what you find difficult or inconvenient, you narrow minded code nazi.

>>116
You suck dick for being too blind to recognize unix shells all suck, fucker.

Tit for tat, retard. Tell me why they're so fucking fantastic. I'll tell you why they aren't: shell scripting (talk about fugly) and a lack of extensibility (ever use a lisp or forth shell?).

>>118
There's a Scheme shell available. In fact all your expletives have convinced me to go install it.

>>103
so far i've really only dealt with Apache ant, log4j, quartz (an open source scheduler), and of course the Sun Java API.  what is this JSF, JSR 168, and Spring that you speak of?  seriously, i would like to hear some intelligent discussion on this topic.