in the order you studied them and rate your experience with it.
C - too much focus on the language itself rather than the goal
Java - never again
C++ - it's like C and Java had sex together and Java commited abortion
Ruby - it was pretty much enjoyable despite the limited time I spent on it
Python - too easy, too slow
Scheme - too complicated for my shallow mind but I like it
``> C++ - it's like C and Java had sex together and Java commited abortion"
Then you don't know the language very well.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 9:59
C - nice for writing a little high-performance lib, but never a full-fledged app.
C++ - a terrible, archaic, dangerous mess.
Java - excellent, simple and beautiful OOP.
Ruby - nice simple little language for minor scripting
Python - a shitty, inconsistent, ugly cousin of Ruby
Haskell - you spend more type conjuring type-foo and fucking with monad transformers than actually coding
Common Lisp - a very unique, dynamic language with the most powerful OOP system ever
Scheme - a simplified, shitty version of Common Lithp
ATS - tried to learn it but was buried under heaps of hard-to-understand foo
Ada - what C++ should've been; a nice imperative OOP generic concurrent language, albeit with a very verbose syntax
Clojure - if you want to Lithp AND devour loads of memory while using shitty Javalibs, it's for you
Scala - people wanted to do type systems research and didn't find a better place to tack it on than JVM; the result is a sad shitpile of unreadable and unwritable boilerplate
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 10:16
BASIC various flavors: Apple, Atari, TI - ok for a beginning language I guess
TI 99/4A assembly - now this was interesting, made a few games
Fortran - didn't like very much
C - better than fortran at least
MATLAB - nice language though rather domain specific, has a few quirks
x86 assembly - good for register level control interface stuff, plus part of CPU design course
AHDL - good for application specific logic
ladder logic - holy shit, not doing that ever again
TI DSP assembly - hey, let's make some signal filters
Perl - great for mangling text
QBasic - does that count?
Visual Basic 3 - Easy to learn, painfully slow even for the time.
C++ - At this point it seemed like a breath of fresh air
C# - Very easy. I know it gets disparaged or ignored around here, but it's by far the most powerful language when you factor in dev time.
JavaScript - I love JavaScript. Sorry. It will blow up in your face, but that's because it's the only language where "run anywhere" is actually enforced in practice. Also because of its terrible scoping.
Python - I don't get why this is so popular. It seems fussy and weak. Fast to develop compared to C, maybe.
Java - A fucking mess maintained by space cadets with no concern for the language's users.
Octave (Matlab clone) - Very powerful. I am spoiled by IDEs, but this is the best language for a lot of tasks. Probably underused.
Ruby - Yet another.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 11:53
>>11 here
Sorry, obviously some C in there too. In practice it is tough to maintain a large codebase in C. You're fine as long as all your coworkers are really smart. Still slow to get anything done.
Also does bash count? I like bash.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 11:57
>>11 again
Also x86 assembly. I don't work in hardware so obviously I haven't done more than just mess around, but it's kind of cool. A good extreme example of easy to learn, hard to master.
>>5 Java - excellent, simple
Ruby - nice simple little language for minor scripting
Python - a shitty, inconsistent, ugly cousin of Ruby
What?
Java is not simple at all. Funny how you think Ada is verbose but Java isn't.
Ruby is not simple at all either. It has an ambiguous as fuck syntax. FIOC might be shit but at least it's somewhat consistent and there aren't Perl-like operators or shit like that.
>>14
Can't we have one civil discussion about programming without someone being told to go back to something? Are you 13? Do you need the group's approval?
You're quite right, though, Java is only simple in that it lacks important features.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 13:00
>>14
Agreed. I found Ruby harder than C/C++, which had only templates as the most complicated part.
>>19
E/G/IN MEME LE /G/ROSKI XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>LE MEME FACE.JP/G/
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 14:25
C - Good for small libs/modules.
C++ - Insanely powerful language, from which you only use 20%.
Java - I am quite sure the creator of java will write a article about how far programmers can be pushed before they take out a whole office.
Scheme - Elegant, consistent, nice, clean semantics, but not too useful for normal work.
Lisp - Less elegant, clean semantics, consistent, but actually useful for normal work.
Perl - For all things, which are boring and are in CPAN.
PHP - This is not a general programming language, but a broken template language. Never use for real work.
Haskell - Elegant, simple, powerful and easy to use. Unfortunately not yet usable for the real world. Fine for web applications or financial stuff. But don't try to make a desktop application. GUI libraries are quite unusable.
Javascript - Like it less than lua, but ok choice for an embedded scripting language.
Lua - Good choice for an embedded scripting language.
Python - This is a mess, inconsistent and threading doesn't work in 2.7 and they won't fix it.
it is easy to implement as scripting language in your programs. You don't need to like it, your users needs to like it. I don't like it too much myself. I don't have much love for weakly dynamically typed languages. And every idiot can write simple javascript or lua.
Lua is more consistent.
If you need to program in javascript, coffeescript makes it more bearable.
Some people don't have a rich Russian oligarch dad and need to work for their food. I am not coding javascript in my free time. Mostly haskell, intercalated with C. Sometimes typed racket/racket, which are scheme dialects.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:43
>>24
Then write a macro to expand it at compile time.
Name:
L. A. Calculus!!wKyoNUUHDOmjW7I2013-06-02 15:50
NONE OF U KNO C COS NONE OF U HAVE RED DA FUCKIN STANDARD.
>>31
Who said you have to program for a living? You can even lift crates and make a living with that. You probably live alone, so you shouldn't waste much.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:54
>>34
Hardly, have a wife and 3 kids and a shitload of responsibilities. I have to lift crates 40 hours a day to supply the money I need. Otherwise I would do it without a second thought.
You didn't learn linear algebra, lambda calculus, discrete mathematics and what else you need for programming. In the end programming is applied mathematics, whether you like it or not. Especially if you want the big money.
>>35 Hardly, have a wife and 3 kids
Your own fucking fault. Don't complain about the choices you made yourself.
Back to Reddit, neurotypical fagstorm. Might as well fuck off back to your favorite parenting, sexuality and celebrities gossip site, but I guess Reddit has subre/g/g/its for that.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:57
calling programming ``coding''
only people born in the 90s do this
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:58
>>36
The big money is where Jews are at, that is, web shit.