So wally I didn't want to step all over Jason's post by discussing this further, there. Also keep in mind that this is just a discussion. There is not right or wrong, only right or wrong for individuals. Or personal beliefs if you will.
I won't disagree with what you say, but it ignores a few simple truths. Programming is hard work and requires absurd amounts of arcane knowledge that can quickly become obsolete. This is somewhat right in concept, but mostly wrong in practical application. Let me pick a single language to help illustrate. C for instance, the language specification changes only once every so many years. But even then the past concepts mostly stay in place. So you only *need* to learn a little at a time which can take place as a given programmer "needs to know". This is easier for experienced programmers. Passed that, all the libraries out there, one does not need to retain that information, as it is really easy to freshen up on most Linux API calls in real time once you're working on code. Again, this is much easier for experienced programmers, and this technique makes it much easier to use new( to the programmer ) libraries as well. So this "arcane knowledge" is only really arcane to those who are really not programmers. Truism ? These graphical or visual programming languages you denigrate really do > help scientists, engineers, and other "domain experts" who aren't, and > don't want to become, "programmers" implement an idea for which there is > not, and will never be until the idea is proven sound, a budget for "hiring > real programmers". > I have a friend who is a scientist, who has picked up programming pretty easily. He might use Python, which I particularly do not care for, but he is able to write code that is mostly competent. Just not as easily or quickly as someone who is more experienced. Passed that, I've read many white papers written by scientist's and if they're serious, they will learn how to program, and indeed many have. One white paper particular where a scientist blew my mind discussing the use of abstract generic templates in C++ . . . a very complex concept. I wont deny that these types of programs are good for prototyping concepts for a proof of concept. The problem is, passed that you have many who want to use these applications to write production code, and I honestly do not think the technology is there yet. And won't be there for a long time. -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/be9da685-5dbc-4519-bb48-3aa461f9c31d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
