On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/14/2022 6:51 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > On 3/14/22 18:15, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >> On 2022-03-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Been there, done that. Took the Jensen and Wirth "Users Manual and
> >>> Report" with me on vacation and learned Pascal in two weeks.
> >>
> >> Pascal's a little easier to learn than C++. :-)
> >
> > The much more experienced programmers where I was working at the time
> > would not agree with you.
> Most would agree with Simon.
>
> C++ is a way more complex language than Pascal.
>
> Or to qualify it: ISO C++ is way more complex
> than ISO non-extended Pascal and more complex than
> VMS Pascal.
>
> (Object Pascal and Delphi are probably as complex
> as ISO C++)
>
> Just the fact that C++ support procedural, object oriented,
> generic and in recent versions functional programming ensures
> that.
>
> Arne
C++'s template language is way beyond Object Pascal or Delphi. I consider
it a separate functional programming language hidden inside of C++. I've seen
people implement all sorts of algorithms using templates alone.

The lack of procedure types in Pascal was always a weak spot in my mind.
VMS Pascal never added them either but I was tempted a few times.

On 3/15/2022 11:13 PM, John Reagan wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 3/14/2022 6:51 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/22 18:15, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Been there, done that. Took the Jensen and Wirth "Users Manual and
>>>>> Report" with me on vacation and learned Pascal in two weeks.
>>>>
>>>> Pascal's a little easier to learn than C++. :-)
>>>
>>> The much more experienced programmers where I was working at the time
>>> would not agree with you.

>> Most would agree with Simon.
>>
>> C++ is a way more complex language than Pascal.
>>
>> Or to qualify it: ISO C++ is way more complex
>> than ISO non-extended Pascal and more complex than
>> VMS Pascal.
>>
>> (Object Pascal and Delphi are probably as complex
>> as ISO C++)
>>
>> Just the fact that C++ support procedural, object oriented,
>> generic and in recent versions functional programming ensures
>> that.

> C++'s template language is way beyond Object Pascal or Delphi. I consider
> it a separate functional programming language hidden inside of C++. I've seen
> people implement all sorts of algorithms using templates alone.

Newer Delphi versions got generics.

But it may be more like Java/C# generics than like C++ templates, which
is a unique weird construct.

Arne

On 2022-03-16 00:09:04 +0000, chris said:

> Thanks, more or less what I suspected. No longer a vms user, but would
> like to see it succeed. Problem is that it's so far behind the
> mainstream now, it will take a lot of effort to catch up. As I said,
> porting cups or other mainstream printing system would fix the printing
> issue for good, but even that would require effort from people familiar
> with both unix and vms.

The lengths of the various dependency chains have been increasing for a
while, yes.

Specifically for printing, CUPS has been mentioned before, as has IPP/IPPS.

Adding IPP/IPPS usually also means adding a dependency on Zeroconf /
mDNS / Bonjour, too. Etc.

> What might be just as important is the head in sand attitude of some,
> as the song goes, you ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. In
> computing, I always expected to have to keep up with developments and
> in fact, that's one of the main attractions of tech, lifelong learning
> and always a student...

There are also discussions of target markets and scale and available
staff and schedule, and of the rate of change across available
platforms.

VSI necessarily has to target those that are still using OpenVMS and
existing apps, and to particularly keep those customers buying support
contracts, and maybe then adding new apps.

Whether there's enough interest in the OpenVMS x86-64 port—both within
the installed base, and beyond—also depends on factors we don't yet
know, not the least of which are pricing, terms, and availability.

To be clear, VSI is doing exactly what they need to be doing here, too.
Where this all goes longer-term for VSI and OpenVMS and customers using
OpenVMS, once the x86-64 port becomes available?

Few vendors have managed to catch up again after falling behind what is
considered competitive product offerings; getting behind on the
proverbial curve.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 3/15/22 19:44, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/14/2022 6:51 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 3/14/22 18:15, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Been there, done that.  Took the Jensen and Wirth "Users Manual and
>>>> Report" with me on vacation and learned Pascal in two weeks.
>>>
>>> Pascal's a little easier to learn than C++. :-)
>>
>> The much more experienced programmers where I was working at the time
>> would not agree with you.
>
> Most would agree with Simon.
>
> C++ is a way more complex language than Pascal.
>
> Or to qualify it: ISO C++ is way more complex
> than ISO non-extended Pascal and more complex than
> VMS Pascal.
>
> (Object Pascal and Delphi are probably as complex
> as ISO C++)
>
> Just the fact that C++ support procedural, object oriented,
> generic and in recent versions functional programming ensures
> that.

You misunderstood. :-)

I didn't mean they would have thought (C++ hadn't been invented yet
at that point in time) C++ easier to learn than Pascal. They would
have believed both were too complex to learn and should not have been
considered for introduction into the production environment.

Most of them couldn't even do PL/I and none of them could do assembler.

bill

On 3/16/2022 6:35 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 3/15/22 19:44, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 3/14/2022 6:51 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/22 18:15, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Been there, done that.  Took the Jensen and Wirth "Users Manual and
>>>>> Report" with me on vacation and learned Pascal in two weeks.
>>>>
>>>> Pascal's a little easier to learn than C++. :-)
>>>
>>> The much more experienced programmers where I was working at the time
>>> would not agree with you.
>>
>> Most would agree with Simon.
>>
>> C++ is a way more complex language than Pascal.
>>
>> Or to qualify it: ISO C++ is way more complex
>> than ISO non-extended Pascal and more complex than
>> VMS Pascal.
>>
>> (Object Pascal and Delphi are probably as complex
>> as ISO C++)
>>
>> Just the fact that C++ support procedural, object oriented,
>> generic and in recent versions functional programming ensures
>> that.
>
> You misunderstood.  :-)
>
> I didn't mean they would have thought (C++ hadn't been invented yet
> at that point in time) C++ easier to learn than Pascal.

Well - you replied to "Pascal's a little easier to learn than C++."
with "The much more experienced programmers where I was working at
the time would not agree with you.".

> They would
> have believed both were too complex to learn and should not have been
> considered for introduction into the production environment.
>
> Most of them couldn't even do PL/I and none of them could do assembler.

I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
than Pascal. It is very easy to learn. No surprise since that is what it
was designed for.

Arne

On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
> than Pascal.

Basic on the various DEC systems.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>> than Pascal.
>
> Basic on the various DEC systems.

Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.

But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.

I find Pascal easier than Basic, but that may really just
reflect that Pascal is more similar to the other languages
I know. For someone not knowing any programming language,
then VMS Basic me at least as easy as VMS Pascal.

Arne

On 2022-03-16, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>> than Pascal.
>
> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>

Pascal is a far superior language to Basic both for production
and teaching uses.

In fact, many people have commented on the problems of undoing
the brain damage caused by teaching people Basic as their first
programming language. :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-03-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>>> than Pascal.
>>
>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>
> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>
> But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.
>

Easy to learn but it doesn't mean you are teaching students the right
things for when they need to start writing production code. :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 3/16/22 19:53, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 6:35 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 3/15/22 19:44, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2022 6:51 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/22 18:15, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Been there, done that.  Took the Jensen and Wirth "Users Manual and
>>>>>> Report" with me on vacation and learned Pascal in two weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pascal's a little easier to learn than C++. :-)
>>>>
>>>> The much more experienced programmers where I was working at the time
>>>> would not agree with you.
>>>
>>> Most would agree with Simon.
>>>
>>> C++ is a way more complex language than Pascal.
>>>
>>> Or to qualify it: ISO C++ is way more complex
>>> than ISO non-extended Pascal and more complex than
>>> VMS Pascal.
>>>
>>> (Object Pascal and Delphi are probably as complex
>>> as ISO C++)
>>>
>>> Just the fact that C++ support procedural, object oriented,
>>> generic and in recent versions functional programming ensures
>>> that.
>>
>> You misunderstood.  :-)
>>
>> I didn't mean they would have thought (C++ hadn't been invented yet
>> at that point in time) C++ easier to learn than Pascal.
>
> Well - you replied to "Pascal's a little easier to learn than C++."
> with "The much more experienced programmers where I was working at
> the time would not agree with you.".

True. They would have believed both were too complex. Neither
easier. The problem when you come from a mainframe environment
and don't believe anything smaller is usable in a production
environment.

>
>>                                                         They would
>> have believed both were too complex to learn and should not have been
>> considered for introduction into the production environment.
>>
>> Most of them couldn't even do PL/I and none of them could do assembler.
>
> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
> than Pascal. It is very easy to learn. No surprise since that is what it
> was designed for.

I had no problem with it. As a result I got to do all the cool
stuff o n the new micro-computers that were rearing their ugly
heads in 1980. I got to do MACRO-11, Z80 Assembler, M68K assembler
and, eventually I even did assembler on the Univac 1100 mainframe.
I considered the learning experience a bonus. Most of the people
I worked with only saw it as more work.

To the best of my knowledge most of them eventually retired as
applications programmers whereas I got to move on to some really
interesting stuff before settling into academia.

bill

On 3/16/2022 8:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>>> than Pascal.
>>
>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>
> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.

What makes them right, and others wrong?

Trump doesn't like democracy, thinks he should be king ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 3/16/2022 8:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>>>> than Pascal.
>>>
>>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>
>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>>
>> But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.
>>
>
> Easy to learn but it doesn't mean you are teaching students the right
> things for when they need to start writing production code. :-)

What makes you right, and me wrong?

Basic has been used for many production systems, and some of them work rather
well. Note that using Ada does not guarantee a good production system.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 3/16/2022 8:52 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>>> than Pascal.
>>
>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>
>
> Pascal is a far superior language to Basic both for production
> and teaching uses.
>
> In fact, many people have commented on the problems of undoing
> the brain damage caused by teaching people Basic as their first
> programming language. :-)

Opinion ...

And some are of the opinion that Trump won the election ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:52:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 3/14/22 18:15, Simon Clubley wrote:

(snip)

> > My IBM knowledge is mainly MVS 3.8 (obviously!) and some modern z/OS.
> > Even from the MVS 3.8 days, there's enough in there to give you a jump
> > start with getting up to speed with how modern z/OS works.

> MVS was outside my experience. I did DOS/E which was a modified version
> of DOS for DOD. Ran on those trailer mounted 360/40.

From OS/360 to MVS to z/OS, many things look the same,
but all the DOS/360 derivatives look different.

In article <t0uf9u$ch0$2@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>On 3/16/2022 8:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>>>>> than Pascal.
>>>>
>>>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>>
>>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>>>
>>> But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.
>>>
>>
>> Easy to learn but it doesn't mean you are teaching students the right
>> things for when they need to start writing production code. :-)
>
>What makes you right, and me wrong?
>
>Basic has been used for many production systems, and some of them work rather
>well. Note that using Ada does not guarantee a good production system.

WRT Ada nor did/does it guarantee interplanetary travel -- Mars Observer. ;)

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

On 2022-03-17, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 8:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>
> What makes them right, and others wrong?
>

Their impact on computing and the fact that Wirth came up with a series
of languages based on his ideas that were _very_ well received (even if
he did like uppercase keywords in some of them).

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-03-17, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 8:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>>
>>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>>>
>>> But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.
>>>
>>
>> Easy to learn but it doesn't mean you are teaching students the right
>> things for when they need to start writing production code. :-)
>
> What makes you right, and me wrong?
>

Pascal was created after the experiences of earlier teaching languages
and was based on Wirth's experiences elsewhere. It has strong type safety
and strong modular programming concepts, essential for teaching good
programming practice.

Basic was an earlier teaching language with none of that and could easily
be considered the Javascript of its day, with a mentality based on ease
of use instead of helping the student to develop robust programming
techniques that would serve them when they started writing code for
production systems.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 3/17/2022 3:10 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-03-17, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 8:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>>>
>>>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>>>>
>>>> But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Easy to learn but it doesn't mean you are teaching students the right
>>> things for when they need to start writing production code. :-)
>>
>> What makes you right, and me wrong?
>>
>
> Pascal was created after the experiences of earlier teaching languages
> and was based on Wirth's experiences elsewhere. It has strong type safety
> and strong modular programming concepts, essential for teaching good
> programming practice.
>
> Basic was an earlier teaching language with none of that and could easily
> be considered the Javascript of its day, with a mentality based on ease
> of use instead of helping the student to develop robust programming
> techniques that would serve them when they started writing code for
> production systems.
>
> Simon.
>

You seem to have this weird concept that the language makes the programmer. I
seriously doubt that.

A good programmer will use good techniques regardless of the language. A poor
programmer will find ways to screw up in just about any language.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Thinking a bit more about it ...

On 3/17/2022 12:58 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 3/16/2022 8:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>>>> than Pascal.
>>>
>>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>
>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.

Bill's professors don't seem to like Cobol, at least according to Bill.

> What makes them right, and others wrong?

What makes them right and people using Cobol wrong?

Those who can, do ...

Those who can't, teach ...

So much for the professors.

Those who can't teach write in trade rags ...

And we're all f**ked up because of it ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

In article <t104l3$mbq$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> You seem to have this weird concept that the language makes the
> programmer. I seriously doubt that.
>
> A good programmer will use good techniques regardless of the language.
> A poor programmer will find ways to screw up in just about any
> language.

And a good Fortran programmer can write Fortran in any language. :-)

On 3/17/22 16:14, Dave Froble wrote:
> Thinking a bit more about it ...
>
> On 3/17/2022 12:58 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 8:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to
>>>>> learn
>>>>> than Pascal.
>>>>
>>>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>>
>>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>
> Bill's professors don't seem to like Cobol, at least according to Bill.

Not just the professors I worked with, the academic world. It turns
out there are a few left, but you will find very little mention of
them or COBOL in academic circles. I have never seen an article
about COBOL in Communications of the ACM. I doubt you could get
one published if you submitted it.

>
>> What makes them right, and others wrong?
>
> What makes them right and people using Cobol wrong?

You do realize this is yet another apples/oranges argument, right?

bill

On 3/16/2022 8:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2022 8:09 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 7:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> I think it would have been difficult to find a language easier to learn
>>>> than Pascal.
>>>
>>> Basic on the various DEC systems.
>>
>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>>
>> But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.
>
> Easy to learn but it doesn't mean you are teaching students the right
> things for when they need to start writing production code. :-)

Teaching something that is easy to learn and teaching something
that is "right" to learn are two different goals.

Arne

On 2022-03-17, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 3:10 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-17, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2022 8:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wirth, Dijkstra etc. did not like Basic.
>>>>>
>>>>> But yes - Basic is also an easy language to learn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Easy to learn but it doesn't mean you are teaching students the right
>>>> things for when they need to start writing production code. :-)
>>>
>>> What makes you right, and me wrong?
>>>
>>
>> Pascal was created after the experiences of earlier teaching languages
>> and was based on Wirth's experiences elsewhere. It has strong type safety
>> and strong modular programming concepts, essential for teaching good
>> programming practice.
>>
>> Basic was an earlier teaching language with none of that and could easily
>> be considered the Javascript of its day, with a mentality based on ease
>> of use instead of helping the student to develop robust programming
>> techniques that would serve them when they started writing code for
>> production systems.
>>
>
> You seem to have this weird concept that the language makes the programmer. I
> seriously doubt that.
>

The language _helps_ make the programmer. You need to have the appropriate
calibre of person to work with before that makes a difference.

> A good programmer will use good techniques regardless of the language. A poor
> programmer will find ways to screw up in just about any language.
>

A potentially good programmer only becomes an actual good programmer
after been exposed to the concepts and techniques they need to know
to make that step. Someone needs to teach them what the good techniques
are in the first place, and why, and they need to practice those techniques.

Can you imagine what the world would look like if people who became
safety critical engineers had only been taught Javascript while learning
programming and software engineering concepts ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-03-17, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
> In article <t104l3$mbq$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
><davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> You seem to have this weird concept that the language makes the
>> programmer. I seriously doubt that.
>>
>> A good programmer will use good techniques regardless of the language.
>> A poor programmer will find ways to screw up in just about any
>> language.
>
> And a good Fortran programmer can write Fortran in any language. :-)
>

And if they only know Fortran, that's all they can do.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

> And if they only know Fortran, that's all they can do.
> Simon.
>
Horse crap!!

I started with an assembly language for the 6502 and the first "real" programming language was FORTRAN.
Since then, I have successfully coded in many languages (last count 15+). Don't generalize.

I also disagree that the language makes the programmer. Programming is a way of thinking and logical progression of steps. Yes these steps may happen in parallel, but fundamentally, programming is just a way to state steps in solving a problem.
I think that it is much more valuable to learn how to think and break down problems into steps rather than to be an expert in the syntax of a language.. You can easily look up the syntax on how to accomplish what you need to accomplish. It is much harder to "fit" an elegant technique to a problem just for the sake of using that technique. And yes, I have seen programmers "find a way" to use a feature of a language even though it was not the right way to get the job done.