Re: Ping John Larkin
- From: Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:23:35 -0700
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:20:35 -0700, "Robert" <bobh3141@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
John,
This recent post on what OOP is all about seems like something you'd be interested in:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.dylan/msg/26dc460a2a5b58b1
Since it confirms your opinion of the idiocy of Programmers. :)
Robert
Interesting. Clearly C and its derivatives are approaching obsolence.
They were designed for solving relatively small problems, on
resource-limited machines, authored by geniuses who hack maximally
cryptic code and don't look back.
He argues for more OOP languages, where modules pass messages
autonomously and presumably asynchronously.
How about this:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/headhunter/archives/2007/08/i_programmer.html
Completely the opposite, namely expressing programs not as procedures
to be executed all over the place, but as point state machines.
I love state-machines, in programs or in hardware. They are forced to
account for every possible system state, and, coded sensibly, have
absolutely known, finite resource needs and can't crash. Modern C
programming mostly reminds me of 1960's vintage async logic design, a
tangled heap of gates, flipflops, one-shots, 555's, rc's, and delay
lines, with no global clock in sight. The real screwups in modern
logic design happen when signals cross clock domains.
Cool link. Thanks.
Just curious: Do you guys use VBA for instrument control?
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ping John Larkin
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Ping John Larkin
- References:
- Ping John Larkin
- From: Robert
- Re: Ping John Larkin
- From: John Larkin
- Ping John Larkin
- Prev by Date: Re: proper response?
- Next by Date: Re: RF project boxes: Where?
- Previous by thread: Re: Ping John Larkin
- Next by thread: Re: Ping John Larkin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading