On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:47:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
>On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 1:50:08 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> And in part because they want to be
>> "cool kids" and "the cool kids" don't use "klunky old languages".
>
>To phrase this in a way which makes visible the _rational_ objection: it
>will be easier to recruit staff if the position provides experience in
>languages that are currently in demand.
By that logic COBOL is dead.
Most APL users are not programmers. My boss did me the kindness of
getting my title changed from "Quant" to "Developer". Most of the
people I work with have titles of "Quant" or "Actuary". You seem to
be living in the IT ghetto.
>> What leads you to believe that every program needs a GUI? Geez, talk
>> about making mountains out of molehills.
>
>It's surprising to me that the point I was making is not clear and
>obvious.
>
>Back in the command-line era...
>
>Command-line programs could be written in a simple and natural
>manner by anyone who was trained in a compiled language.
>
>Thus, if you were a programmer, you could write applications
>programs.
>
>Today, though, with the prevalence of the GUI - *and* the way
>operating systems are designed to support the GUI - there is no
>longer a simple path from "learn how to program" and "write an
>application that at least approaches those which are commercially
>sold and distributed".
>
>Now the tools used to build applications are much more complex
>than a compiler for a programming language.
>
>Of course, though, what with APL not normally producing
>compiled executables, this is not so much of an issue for APL
>specifically.
Once again you seem to be falling into the IT ghetto. I need numbers
crunched. I don't need a pretty GUI. My colleagues need numbers
crunched. They don't need pretty GUIs. You are assuming that the
only utility of a tool is to produce commercial software. The fact is
that producing GUIs in APL isn't any more painful than producing them
in Python, so by your logic Python must be dead.
|
|