[AdamSpeight2008]

I want this thread to more of discussion on people mean when then say "real" programming language, which I put this

Quote

Let's find them out, without using derogative or negative digs at other languages.

in the first post.

I agree that the Visual side (forms, buttons etc) of VB over-saturates people when they start to learn the language, so much that it masks the (IHMO) power and constructs (Custom classes, Generic Collections, etc) available to programmer in the underlying language.

[Raynes]

What people mean when they say "real" programming language is "Hey, I'm an idiot. Ignore me."

What exactly would make the distinction between a real programming language and a fake one? I mean, seriously, Brainfuck is as much a programming language as C. The more you worry about which language is better than others the less you get done. Been there, done that.

An aside, only partially related to the topic: the only way to get people to understand why you like programming language x so much better than their favorite language y is to get them to use x themselves. Focus on that.

[trevster344]

How about if it works, you like it and it performs the task, use it?

[RetardedGenius]

tlhIn`toq, what about Javascript? OK it's essentially scripting behaviour for a browser tab but it's now being used to build things that really are applications in their own right.

Also regarding VB.NET, whilst I begrudgingly concede that it is a 'real programming language' I hate it with a passion. Case in point: is the code below an element of an array or an integer literal being passed as a parameter to a function?

ambiguous(13)

[AdamSpeight2008]

It an error, it's not in context. Show the code.

It like saying what this is { ... } in C# is a scoping or an array literal. Don't know without the context.

Quote

Do you want a punch?

Edit: Indexing can be thought as a Function any way, it is implement via Default Property (which is maps to a function), usually with the name Item Link

(MyCollection[T], Index) -> T

So why does there need to be a distinction between the too?

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 31 October 2011 - 04:38 PM

[ishkabible]

Raynes, on 31 October 2011 - 10:31 PM, said:

What people mean when they say "real" programming language is "Hey, I'm an idiot. Ignore me."

i more or less agree. I think that in the context of sarcasm or in the discussion of an esoteric language, "real" has a valid meaning.

Raynes, on 31 October 2011 - 10:31 PM, said:

What exactly would make the distinction between a real programming language and a fake one? I mean, seriously, Brainfuck is as much a programming language as C. The more you worry about which language is better than others the less you get done. Been there, done that.

i have to disagree here, brainfuck, malbolge, intercal, etc... are not real becuase they prohibit actual work from getting done unnecessarily. there is no benefit to them being so messed up(well maybe brainfuck because it's so simple but that's a stretch)

[AdamSpeight2008]

I think all of them are also Turing Complete, just like "real" languages.

[dorknexus]

Turing Tarpit

[DimitriV]

A real language is anything you can use to create programs for the good of humanity, or for pranks. It's a real language if what you make with it works as you wish.

[stackoverflow]

I believe people get into these kinds of arguments because they feel the lower level the language the more 'real' it is. This is a ridiculous argument, because if we carried it out to the end we would find the only 'real' programming language is machine code, or flipping bits by hand!

This is silly.

There's nothing wrong with using a high level language. It doesn't make you less of a programmer. Furthermore, code generation has came a long way and is used by a great number of IDEs. Code generation is also used in 'visual programming' and in tools-- such as GUI designers etc.

Most people that pick on VB would go back to their IDE and use a GUI designer-- committing the same 'sins' they just shunned. There's nothing wrong with code generation.

A programmer is a problem solver, and a programming language is a tool of a programmer. The language is only one tool. A good programmer knows how to use many tools, which include many languages, code generation and other techniques to improve their efficiency at solving problems in a timely manner.

[DimitriV]

stackoverflow, on 01 November 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

I believe people get into these kinds of arguments because they feel the lower level the language the more 'real' it is. This is a ridiculous argument, because if we carried it out to the end we would find the only 'real' programming language is machine code, or flipping bits by hand!

This is silly.

There's nothing wrong with using a high level language. It doesn't make you less of a programmer. Furthermore, code generation has came a long way and is used by a great number of IDEs. Code generation is also used in 'visual programming' and in tools-- such as GUI designers etc.

Most people that pick on VB would go back to their IDE and use a GUI designer-- committing the same 'sins' they just shunned. There's nothing wrong with code generation.

A programmer is a problem solver, and a programming language is a tool of a programmer. The language is only one tool. A good programmer knows how to use many tools, which include many languages, code generation and other techniques to improve their efficiency at solving problems in a timely manner.

Precisely.
Even if you use a low-level or high-level language you're still learning a language for programming.

[Shane Hudson]

no2pencil, on 31 October 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

A good friend of mine used to constantly go back & forth, C/++ vs Visual Basic, Linux vs Windows.

My argument against Visual Basic has always been the automated drop down items, the pre-filled in "Form1!" names, & the complete lack of requiring any computing knowledge to create an end result.

Can you make a good product with Visual Basic? Sure. But would you want to? I wouldn't. It's like code-by-number & it's for moms, seniors, & all together computer programming degenerates that require constant hand-holding.

The fact that C/C++ makes for a great cross-platform language is just icing on the cake It can go anywhere I do. It's the functional building blocks for pretty much most systems, architectures, software, operating systems, & so on & so on.

Why point & click when I can be getting some actual work done?

To extend from your points, I have come to the conclusion that programmers that want to use VB to write well formed code is fine. I wouldn't but I know a few that are great at it. However BECAUSE VB is visual and because it is easy, many people start with it as their first language (I did) and that brings bad habits, such as relying on the IDE. Visual Studio (and the old VB IDE) is pretty good but it is so fully featured that you do not need to know anything. I think it is fine to use if you know how, but not for learning.

Back to what is a real language, it is something that requires knowledge to create a real program. Though I think that definition might be starting to change with the advent of languages such as PHP, Python and Ruby (yes and ASP.net ) which are being used (and I suppose Javascript actually) to create fully featured web applications. Node.js is Javascript, you do not need to use a real programming language to make a fully featured program... so yes I think the definitions need to be adapted.

[Raynes]

ishkabible, on 01 November 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

Raynes, on 31 October 2011 - 10:31 PM, said:

What people mean when they say "real" programming language is "Hey, I'm an idiot. Ignore me."

i more or less agree. I think that in the context of sarcasm or in the discussion of an esoteric language, "real" has a valid meaning.

Raynes, on 31 October 2011 - 10:31 PM, said:

What exactly would make the distinction between a real programming language and a fake one? I mean, seriously, Brainfuck is as much a programming language as C. The more you worry about which language is better than others the less you get done. Been there, done that.

i have to disagree here, brainfuck, malbolge, intercal, etc... are not real becuase they prohibit actual work from getting done unnecessarily. there is no benefit to them being so messed up(well maybe brainfuck because it's so simple but that's a stretch)

See, my beef is that you're redefining 'real' here. You're completely changing what 'real' means.

http://www.google.co...=utf-8&oe=utf-8 tells me that the definition of 'real' is "Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person".".

Your definition of real is 'useful', and that's what I really hate about this conversation and its wording.

[AdamSpeight2008]

It's nor the definition of the word real that being question, but its definition when used in context of "Real Programming Language".

Are there Fake Programming Languages?

For example if say I thought Raynes was Gay. Do mean Gay => Happy or Gay => Homosexual?

"He's the Gay's Gay" the context is more clear cut. Ir is Gay => Homosexual .

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 01 November 2011 - 10:41 AM

[xclite]

Unfortunately nobody has put forth an objective definition of a "real language" so this conversation is going to go nowhere productive.