Comments on: .NET considered harmful http://ursecta.com/wp/2009/09/net-considered-harmful/ J. Martin Wehlou on Security, Software Development, and Medicine Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:43:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: martin http://ursecta.com/wp/2009/09/net-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-16167 martin Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:21:30 +0000 http://ursecta.com/wp/?p=285#comment-16167 Well, I think there's a place for preprocessors instead. With a preprocessor, you can both extend and limit a language according to need. Also, if the underlying language system has a powerful framework, the preprocessed language has it available as well. What we would need to make the creation of special purpose language preprocessors easier is support in the underlying language and frameworks for preprocessing and the most common patterns one needs to write preprocessors. Plus support for diagnostics and live debugging of the custom language source code. Now, *that* would be fun! Well, I think there’s a place for preprocessors instead. With a preprocessor, you can both extend and limit a language according to need. Also, if the underlying language system has a powerful framework, the preprocessed language has it available as well.

What we would need to make the creation of special purpose language preprocessors easier is support in the underlying language and frameworks for preprocessing and the most common patterns one needs to write preprocessors. Plus support for diagnostics and live debugging of the custom language source code.

Now, *that* would be fun!

]]> By: K.Nevelsteen http://ursecta.com/wp/2009/09/net-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-16166 K.Nevelsteen Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:09:45 +0000 http://ursecta.com/wp/?p=285#comment-16166 After discussion and some thought, a reaction to your article came to mind. Perhaps what you highlight is a lacking where one language is not sufficient any longer? I would like to use the gaming industry as case study. Considering the momentum that the gaming industry has at this moment in time and the fast pace at which they must develop games, it is not hard to imagine that at least some of their development techniques are on the forefront. Therefore, I would like to point the finger at their clear two distinct levels of programming. Core developers are programming in a low level language in order to get to metal for performance. At the same time they provide a framework for "script" programmers to code the gameplay at a higher level. Often the title has risen from script programming to just gameplay programmer already. Because of what you describe and the welcome-to-the-real-world Microsoft guy has stated, there seems to be an obvious need for a "safe" language. I would like to draw an analogy between the safe language and the script language used in gaming and also Javascript used in the browser. Both of these scripting languages are becoming über powerful, but perhaps "safe". On the flip side, there needs to be core developers that have the power to develop tools for the higher level programmers. Microsoft seems to want to fill those shoes. Namely, they provide the core functionality and all the other Microsoft developers are forced to be higher level developers. I would say that Microsoft is going about this wrong and needs to allow for platform tools that are powerful enough so that core developers can define a higher level of abstraction along side already given platform functionality. So, the moral here is that platform needs to grant enough power for core developers! Although there is no official title for these different types of programmers (except in the game industry), perhaps we have two distinct job types that aren't so obvious in the application development world. After discussion and some thought, a reaction to your article came to mind.

Perhaps what you highlight is a lacking where one language is not sufficient any longer?

I would like to use the gaming industry as case study. Considering the momentum that the gaming industry has at this moment in time and the fast pace at which they must develop games, it is not hard to imagine that at least some of their development techniques are
on the forefront. Therefore, I would like to point the finger at their clear two distinct levels of programming. Core developers are programming in a low level language in order to get to metal for performance. At the same time they provide a framework for “script”
programmers to code the gameplay at a higher level. Often the title has risen from script programming to just gameplay programmer already.

Because of what you describe and the welcome-to-the-real-world Microsoft guy has stated, there seems to be an obvious need for a “safe” language. I would like to draw an analogy between
the safe language and the script language used in gaming and also Javascript used in the browser. Both of these scripting languages are becoming über powerful, but perhaps “safe”.

On the flip side, there needs to be core developers that have the power to develop tools for the higher level programmers. Microsoft seems to want to fill those shoes. Namely, they provide
the core functionality and all the other Microsoft developers are forced to be higher level developers. I would say that Microsoft is going about this wrong and needs to allow for platform tools that are powerful enough so that core developers can define a higher level
of abstraction along side already given platform functionality. So, the moral here is that platform needs to grant enough power for core developers!

Although there is no official title for these different types of programmers (except in the game industry), perhaps we have two distinct job types that aren’t so obvious in the application
development world.

]]>