Re: Programming skills required by mathematicians?

On 5 Jul, 03:03, Marshall <marshall.spi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 5:58 pm, ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Jul, 01:18, Marshall <marshall.spi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This was a fierce argument in the 1970s. Your side lost.
>
> > > > > > That it lost doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong.
>
> > > > > That the debate was settled decades ago and there
> > > > > has been no meaningful question about it since is
> > > > > a very, very strong indication that it was, in fact,
> > > > > utterly wrong.
>
> > > > The debate has never been settled. It's rather become a niche
thing.
>
> > > You are mistaken on this point.
>
> > "No, you are."
>
> > Anyway, please feel free to elaborate.
>
> Why should I? The issues is long since settled. If there
> is some squabbling on the playground still, that doesn't
> mean the adults have any questions.
>
> No major programming language has been released in
> decades that sup****ts goto. (I am not talking about
> something done by some guy in his garage; such guys
> are still regularly reinventing BASIC.) We could perhaps
> regard C++ as the last major one to do so in 1983,
> but its goto could well be ascribed to C's goto from
> 1972.
>
> OCaml doesn't have goto. Java doesn't have goto.
> SQL doesn't have goto. Haskell doesn't have goto.
> C# has goto, but no one ever accused mainstream
> Microsoft of having taste. (And C# has no particular
> market share, at least not yet anyway.) And F# doesn't
> have goto, so it can at least be seen that the smart people
> at Microsoft know what they're doing.
>
> As Hudson said, "Game over man."


You talk as the proberbial incompetent in the field. The software
industry is indeed sinking within this very kind of incompetence. No
offence meant, just our game over.

-LV


>
> Marshall