Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- From: tim <TimJ@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:40:42 -0000
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:29:41 -0800, Alistair wrote:
On 28 Feb, 01:51, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In fact, the main argument for doing the Java conversion is so that new age
programmers can maintain code (and they need to do this less in an OO
language, than a non-OO one, if they play their cards right...) in a
language they are familiar with. If this language is also perceived as being
"past its sell-by date", then there may be no point in converting to it.
Instead, re-write or re-script what needs change and do it in whatever
language facilitates that, whether it is C#, PHP, or Ruby...
Ruby is generating fierce interest in Europe, even more than elsewhere.
So too is GROOVY
There is an argument that these languages are so productive that rewriting
things is a viable approach. I was at a Ruby User group meeting yesterday
and one of the guys had a web forms package. One particular piece of code
was all of 60 lines of code. He apologised for this and solicited
suggestions as to how it could be done better.
In my rewrite of the COBOLForGCC compiler in Lisp, I am getting a
reduction in lines of code of about 70% compared to C. This does
qualitatively change things. Rewriting 600 lines of code is a different
proposition to rewriting 2,000 lines.
Tim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- References:
- Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- From: Clark F Morris
- Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- From: Alistair
- Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: The Geek defense
- Next by Date: Re: OT: The Geek defense
- Previous by thread: Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- Next by thread: Re: Today (Feb 26) IBM announcements
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|