Windows 8 / Metro ?

[Joeman]

I disagree. A high level language should make it easier to write code since it abstracts away hardware dependency which abstracts away concepts related to hardware. For example, who aligns machine code to cache lines? It also offers a better logical understanding than low level languages( assembly ). The .net languages are much easier compared to writing in assembly and a lot easier to debug. I view c++ as a middle level language even though that isn't really true since it is a high level language, but c++ isn't as safe as other higher level languages( garbage collection, removal of pointers ) nor does it have a default application framework.

Beginners can mess up in high level languages, but not so badly compared to a low level approach where you begin with almost nothing to help you and your tools aren't bundled up so nicely

Also there are some high level assembly languages, but I wouldn't really call them high level compared to c#.

The only bloat I am afraid of is where it stalls my computer for no good reason. It does seem if computers get faster, programs get slower every time. Consider how fast vb6 starts up and how much memory is used compared to vs2010. Even though I have a fairly good computer, I like to keep bottlenecks down. There are exceptions like firefox which is deadly with memory, but I couldn't live without it.

Sorry for aiding in being off topic

[TheGreatCthulhu]

I meant that they are more likely to mess up as opposed to the more experienced devs, not with respect to lower level technologies - precisely because beginners often don't have the slightest idea about what's going on under the hood, and as soon as they try to do something more than what they found in an intro book or a tutorial, and run into trouble, they will be completely lost. Because, given the "right approach", all abstractions are leaky.

Furthermore, to understand abstractions you have to focus on the concepts they introduce, while, in my experience, beginners often get lost in the details, failing to see the big picture.
Also, they often have yet to develop the ability of abstract thinking, so even understanding something as important as OOP can be a problem. Not to speak about design patterns, architecture, frameworks, and other stuff on which high-level development builds upon.

So, yes, I agree that a beginner is more likely to mess up in assembly then in C#, but the argument 12oclocker was making was that all this high level stuff was made so that beginners could have it easy - I'm just saying that's not the case.

EDIT:
Just realized...
"I meant that they are more likely to mess up as opposed to the more experienced devs"
Well, yeah. I guess that goes without saying...
But the point was: the purpose of abstractions is generally not to help beginners.

EDIT 2:
As for where they are more likely to mess up... Maybe someone should investigate first, before we make these kind of statements. Yes, abstractions hide hardware details, but humans have an uncanny capability to mess up anything. Understanding the fundamental concept is always a must - low level or high level.

[Joeman]

Beginners are significantly more likely to mess up with higher level technologies, so, I don't think they are made for them...

I meant that they are more likely to mess up as opposed to the more experienced devs, not with respect to lower level technologies

Well I am glad you revised your words because I really didn't read it that way the first time . I won't argue that they are more prone to write horrible code, but at least it won't blow up so quickly. It also gives them a safer environment and they do get a jump start faster without worrying about how that window is created or worrying about memory management and etc. Sure c# wasn't designed for beginners to have a new toy as 12oclocker said, but rather to help in development of applications overall. However it does help beginners in a good way. I remember when I started using vb6 and drag and dropping controls were a no brainer. So it does help beginners and no it wasn't made just for them like 12oclocker said.

[12oclocker]

Do you want a TRS-80? I still have one, lying down in some cellar. And I can guarantee that it's entirely unbloated. What could you bloat within the 16 kB of RAM in the most popular variety or the 12kB of ROM? (Note that nowadays application icon files are at leat about the total RAM size of the TRS-80. Would you call that bloat?) Or do you want a C64? The fact that the TRS-80's Level 2 BASIC originally is from Microsoft is relatively well-known, yet the fact that they made the C64 BASIC as well is not. Perhaps they weren't too proud of that?

The point is: Don't forget where the name Microsoft comes from. It originates more than three decades ago and the notion of "bloat" these days was different from what it is now. While 30+ years ago what nowadays is a single app's icon image would have instantly exhausted the total RAM capacity of a contemporary machine, it's way in the "don't care" range now. Even my (outdated) mobile phone has more memory by magnitudes than the "computers" from three decades ago.

Get the point? It's all a matter of time frame.



To sum up all the lines above: Why worry? The "half a gig" of wasted space you complain about would be no more than 0.2% of the capacity of my own outdated hard drive. So what!?

Both storage and processing requirements need to be considered in their respective time frames. Konrad Zuse's brain would certainly have instantly exploded when he realized that my (outdated!) Motorola V3 mobile has, by magnitudes, more memory and processing power than the mainframs of the 60's and 70's!

And as to the dupfinding: I'm always slightly annoyed by the fact that Unison always copies my Excel files to the backup if only I opened instead of modifying them. But then again, who cares!? That's less than 1% of my overall backup volume. You may be really concerned about that if you were the author of Unison (or Excel), but most probably you are not. And the culprit of that Excel File mess-up certainly is MS (yes, now they actually are), yet I don't really care since it doesn't really waste a significat amount of my time or storage capacity.

I see I upset you somehow with my opinions, no I don't want your old TRS-80, I already have one, and it's my main PC of course. thanks though, (<-kidding) I'm still not compelled by the argument, just because their is plenty of space to waste, does not mean I want the space wasted. Though I may have terabytes of harddrive space, and gigs of memory, I still like to compile my programs so they are very tiny and consume very little resources, I guess that's old-school, oh well. I have no more opinions on the subject, and leave the matter for the rest of you to argue about ;-)

[Alex F]

I still like to compile my programs so they are very tiny and consume very little resources, I guess that's old-school, oh well.

This old school is still actual for embedded and real time programming, real programmer who wants to make a good job still has a lot of things to do. New technologies just give more opportunities for VB6 guys

[12oclocker]

This old school is still actual for embedded and real time programming, real programmer who wants to make a good job still has a lot of things to do. New technologies just give more opportunities for VB6 guys

Maybe that's why anything that's not small bothers me, most of my work now days is embedded system stuff, everything must be very tight, some stuff is still desktop apps, and some of which must interface with the embedded. My brother still swears by VB and says it's quicker than C++ for him, I still swear by C++ and have a collection of libraries I've written which I helps get things done quicker.

[Eri523]

[...] I guess that's old-school, oh well.

To clarify: I'm one of those old-school guys myself. I know how to write assembly language, but actually I use that skill rather rarely nowadays since there rarely is a need to.

To condense my point into really few words: I definitely do hate unnecessary bloat as well, I just don't consider modern technologies that demand a contemporary amount of resources a bloat per se.

[...] The problem is that this is not related to the topic discussed here

OMG what have I started by replying to 12oclocker's post #26! You're absolutely right. 12oclocker spotted it correctly in post #34: Yes, it did set me up to some extent, making my reply kind of an over-reaction. However, I had no idea what an avalanche of follow-ups that would kick off...

[Alex F]

Never mind, does anybody remember now what is this question about?

[ovidiucucu]

Never mind, does anybody remember now what is this question about?

Probably... about Windows 8 / Metro.

@ to 12oclocker: Please keep on-topic!
If you have general issues about whatever technologies and you want to argue, a better place is General Developer Topics.
So, let us discuss here about "Windows 8 and Metro".

Thank you!

[superbonzo]

Never mind, does anybody remember now what is this question about?

... as in real life, the eternal battle between progress and conservation ...

As for where they are more likely to mess up... Maybe someone should investigate first, before we make these kind of statements.

I totally agree, statements about behaviors of people should always be tested against real measurements, as the risk of biases derived by projecting your own experience to others is just too high ...

So it does help beginners

indeed, define "help"; one thing that characterizes beginners is that they have only a vague idea of what their software should do or how it should appear/interact with the user - one thing that characterizes professional/serious programmers is that of having the strictest requirements as possible before even starting coding.

Now, it's easy to define what a "helping" technology is for serious programmers: <just> measure the time needed for and the quality of the resulting code relative to those requirements ( Eri523's reasonings about resources in contemporary hardware is an example of such relative measurements ).

But what about beginners ? no clear requirements to measure against -- you have just a bunch of code and its own enthusiast creator ...

as TheGreatCthulhu said, abstraction is not about making things easier, it is about mapping one context of thought to another context of thought;

now, if one happens to master the mapped context better than the mapped-to context then it surely will result in having being "helped by" the new abstraction;

but, as you can see, this is not a property of the abstraction per se, it's a property of a pair of abstractions relative to a human ( or better, to a human in a specified activity ).

of course, being a software abstraction a product of a community of programmers, its very reason of existence implies that there exist an audience of programmers relative to which the abstraction appears as a programming aid, but this is only a spurious side effect ...



anyway, just to stay on topic ...

I'm glad to see that WinRT has a relative, namely WRL, exposing the same functionality with no language extensions involved ( actually, as far I understand, WinRT should be consumable from plain COM directly, WRL just wrapping the component creation/consume process, am I right ? ).

EDIT: oops, just seen ovidiucucu reply ... I won't digress anymore

[Joeman]

as TheGreatCthulhu said, abstraction is not about making things easier, it is about mapping one context of thought to another context of thought;

I disagree. It is to make things easier by mapping one set of contexts to another and not to make things harder in general. I am fine with simplifying tools to make them more flexible and less ridged if suitable. Even assembly made life easier and we did need something easier than machine code and now we have c, c++, c#, perl, python, php, asp, vb, java, javascript, bash and etc. Now we have lots of languages. Some are better than the other for certain task to make that task easier. I am glad that we have an high abstraction which made building operating systems a tad bit easier, but there is always a price in trade offs.

indeed, define "help";

From Google search - define: help - Make it easier for (someone) to do something by offering aid.

I suppose abstraction is the aid in this terminology.

Again it simply makes it easier for a beginner and I am not trying to imply a language is for beginners simply because it is easier to use. It is just an effect that should occur. I am not that bias toward a language in general.

However c++ isn't really much of an help with simplification, but rather a tool with a complicated list of abstractions. Just imagine reading the std and say it is simple in any way Thanks to those complicated abstractions, it does make c++ a tad bit easier.

So, let us discuss here about "Windows 8 and Metro".

I honestly don't care about what happens with windows 8. After vista, I realized xp was way better for general use . Then came windows 7 which was an improvement for general use and now I have window 8 to deal with and its new tablet like interface? I think I will just watch it pass by since the desktop will be just like windows 7. Only if I have no choice, but other than that, you can forget about it.

[nuzzle]

I honestly don't care about what happens with windows 8.

As an individual programmer you're free not to care of course. For example at the DOS-to-Windows paradigm shift many programmers didn't care for Windows and stubbornly stuck with DOS. Then when employment opportunities dwindled some grudgingly accepted Windows whereas others quit programming altogether and started growing magic mushrooms in Sugarcandy Mountain.

But for programmers as a group the market decides which technologies they're going to be using. So what I was wondering really is whether people think Metro constitutes a crossroads of DOS-to-Windows magnitude, or if it's just a slight change of directions? I guess it's the latter.

I suppose abstraction is the aid in this terminology.

Say you're a berserk with no other weapons than your bare hands. Even if you're ambitious you most likely won't be able to hurt that many before you get stopped and you probably won't succeed in strangling yourself to any greater harm. Sporting a shotgun on the other hand the situation changes dramatically. Even if you're completely docile with no malign intent whatsoever you're now a major threat both towards yourself and others. And if it's in your powers to launch a nuclear missile it gets even scarier. Now the fate of mankind may rest with you.

So generally, the higher the abstraction the more competent you must be. Powerful tools combined with low skill and bad judgement simply is a high-risk proposition.

[Joeman]

As an individual programmer you're free not to care of course.

Actually I was thinking of a user's point of view. I can see how you got confused, but as a programmer I haven't actually looked at windows 8 ... yet ...

So what if metro maybe the next big tablet thing for windows. I know they are trying to generalize the way we use the computer or aka to simplify. This just proves my point. They are trying to abstract the ideal on how we use computers to a point of a click and drag of a pen. I don't care about a single app that is fullscreened unless it is a 3d game. Maybe on a tablet, but I don't need a single app taking up my computer screen. I haven't really tested windows 8 and I will give it a fair try like I always do before bashing it.

So generally, the higher the abstraction the more competent you must be. Powerful tools combined with low skill and bad judgement simply is a high-risk proposition.

Go back to assembly and you will find nukes faster and more dangerous than a high level language should have. A high abstraction should remove me from cutting off my leg by accident. If it doesn't someone wrote some poor code/abstraction.

Ideally speaking, an abstraction is an ideal and a good ideal is one that provides the best way to due a certain task. If this task involves security, I expect this ideal to work correctly even in the worst case scenario.

started growing magic mushrooms in Sugarcandy Mountain

I suppose you think all drugs are evil except the ones the doctor prescribes or the ones over the counter. I can't help you there, but all those side effects from those drugs are a lot worse than what I care to mention. Drugs aren't evil nor do they have to be "good".

Go check your blood pressure nuzzle, you seem to have a high level of stress. Your post lately have been degrading... and no I am not attacking you.