-- Steve Fosdick fozzy@pelvoux.demon.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:02:08AM -0700, David Freeman wrote:
But I've just written my first kernel MODULE!!! and it work, which
was
a big surprise
What does it do?
Prints Hello World of course, a programmer like you should know that thats the first program you always right :o) Seriously when you insmod it it prints hello world. and when you rmmod it prints goodbye cruel world.
One language I don't want to learn is C++.
I am interested as to why you should say that.
I get the impression that there are many people who think that C++ isn't a terribly pure language or that it doesn't have a particularly clean design. It is, however, very sucessful.
True, bit like windows :o)
I don't think there is any doubt that a language such as C++ is a compromise as C was before it, but compromise isn't necessarily bad.
Exactly, and a compromise is the worst parts of all solutions. The language I am liking at the moment is java, it just makes sense with the OO design etc...
Considering C, I would suggest that without a language like C there would be no portable OS like Unix and Linux. Writing in Assembler would give the required level of run time efficiency and the ability to talk to the hardware when required but not the portability, and just about every other language would have been too inefficient, or unable to access the hardware at the required level.
I would agree, C was one of those things which changed history, without it we would never have the computer revolution we have now. It is however over 30 yrs old, which means it's not as modern and good as a language which was designed recently.
When it comes to the emergence of C++ I would suggest that run time efficiency was still a concern, but there was the added incentive to use C++ - compatibility with C.
Agreed.
As time goes by, run time efficiency is becoming less of a concern and p-code and interpreted languages are now quite realistic for "serious" applications - even so, someone in our office was complaining today how much slower the Oracle GUI tools written in Java (8.1.6) are than the previous ones (7.3.4) not written in Java (I would guess at C++ but that is just a guess).
Exactly, some of the things which in the past would be written such that they would run fast, but now powerful hardware can coverup alot of bad practice.
I Am amazed that there is such a holy war about programming languages, particully the language people first learnt was there favourite and all others are programmed as if they were using the first language.
I'm not sure that this is the case.
There is with alot of people I know who program.
The first language I learnt was BASIC on the Sinclair ZX81. All variable names had to be kept short, there were no blocks, no named functions or procedures, IF statements couldn't have an ELSE part, there was no DO WHILE or REPEAT UNTIL so there had to be lots of GOTOs and GOSUBs.
BBC basic @ 9 yrs old, horrible language, then Visual Basic - I agree with ESR "about as uch fun as a picnic in a toxic waste dump" Z80 assembler and then C. Since learing C I have learnt Java and it makes more sense to me than procedural programming.
I would not be caught programming now in the way that I had to for that version of basic.
Take a look at your older code, you will notice you did very BASIC things in C, I know I have tried these things.
I think it may be the case though that the general methodology that one first learns becomes the default. Those people whose first taste was with procedural programming may always find that more natural than OO or the kind of thinking required for Advanced use of SQL.
Yes I would agree with this.
Thanks
D
Steve.
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/