To bring this back to SOA, this is one of the bits where SOA really helps (IMO), the reason that languages and platforms are so much more complex these days is that systems are much more complex. Everytime something new comes along that is "30% quicker" we end up doing 30% extra work in the time freed up, so we don't actually finish projects much quicker. SOA can help you create a simple picture of the complexity, and then you can choose the right hammer (language) for the job.
That said about "modern" languages, I still find Ada more readable than Ruby, and I can't believe that Eiffel remains the only language with baked in support for pre/post and invariant conditions. Steve On 20/07/06, Ashley at Metamaxim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Alex wrote > > > > Nah, languages isn't really what we should be discussing ; it's all > > about overall design and architecture. > > > I have an observation to make on this. > > When I learned to program (back in the 1970s/80s -- pre OOP days) languages > (COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal, etc) were small. You could learn the whole of a > language in a few days. This meant that you soon raised your head above the > language to think how best to use it, and this naturally led to consideration > of design at a higher level. > > Now languages are ernormous. As well as the basic languages we have class > libraries, frameworks, distributed component models, annotations, AOP etc. > You could spend your whole life learning this and never raise your head above > the language level. As a result, I think we have become very language-centric > in our thinking about software engineering. > > Perhaps we are now too language-centric? > > Rgds > Ashley > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gervas Douglas > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:36 AM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Meehan on Kicking Java > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Alexander > Johannesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I think it's time to have a massive language wars, just to > prove > > > > the age of the list. :) > > > > On 7/19/06, Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why not? > > > > Because it's ... dumb? :) Any language is good or bad depending on the > > hands that yields it. Leveraging your user-base on the languages you > > support can only mean more of what you've already got, both good *and* > > bad. Saying things like (I forget who; someone up the post-chain) > > "JavaScript is really bad for collaborative projects" just > > demonstrates this persons bad experiences with it. I've got some good > > ones. So what? > > > > Nah, languages isn't really what we should be discussing ; it's all > > about overall design and architecture. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Alex > > -- > > "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know." > > - Frank Herbert > > __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________ > > > > I seem to remember founding this Group to discuss principally > service-orientated architecture. There is no reason why people should not > discuss languages in that they relate to SOA, especially Descriptive > Languages. If you want to have a debate about languages in that they relate > to lightbulbs for instance, you are welcome to do so in the N-GAA Group as > indicated in my last message on the subject where I mentioned a posting about > languges in that Group. > > Gervas > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
