<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_26_2016255</id>
	<title>Dumbing Down Programming?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1259228640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>RunRevKev writes <i>"The unveiling of <a href="http://www.runrev.com/">Revolution 4.0</a> has sparked a debate on ZDNet about <a href="http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10014516o-2000458459b,00.htm">whether programming is being dumbed down</a>. The new version of the software uses an English-syntax that requires 90 per cent less code than traditional languages. A descendant of Apple's Hypercard, Rev 4 is set to '...empower people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications.' ZDNet reports that 'One might reasonably hope that this product inspires students in the appropriate way and gets them more interested in programming.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>RunRevKev writes " The unveiling of Revolution 4.0 has sparked a debate on ZDNet about whether programming is being dumbed down .
The new version of the software uses an English-syntax that requires 90 per cent less code than traditional languages .
A descendant of Apple 's Hypercard , Rev 4 is set to '...empower people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications .
' ZDNet reports that 'One might reasonably hope that this product inspires students in the appropriate way and gets them more interested in programming .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RunRevKev writes "The unveiling of Revolution 4.0 has sparked a debate on ZDNet about whether programming is being dumbed down.
The new version of the software uses an English-syntax that requires 90 per cent less code than traditional languages.
A descendant of Apple's Hypercard, Rev 4 is set to '...empower people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications.
' ZDNet reports that 'One might reasonably hope that this product inspires students in the appropriate way and gets them more interested in programming.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242000</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, yet exaggerated...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259250240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol, and I thought ruby &amp; python dumbed down programming...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , and I thought ruby &amp; python dumbed down programming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, and I thought ruby &amp; python dumbed down programming...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241862</id>
	<title>Re:It actually doesn't look that good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259248860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does seem strange. If someone doesn't understand that x = 1 + 2 means that 1 + 2  will stored in the variable x (or if they don't understand the sign '+'), they should probably go back to elementary school before they start programming. Seriously, any average 8-year old could probably tell you what happens in the expression "x = 1 + 2", and most will probably understand what happens when you use that x in another operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does seem strange .
If someone does n't understand that x = 1 + 2 means that 1 + 2 will stored in the variable x ( or if they do n't understand the sign ' + ' ) , they should probably go back to elementary school before they start programming .
Seriously , any average 8-year old could probably tell you what happens in the expression " x = 1 + 2 " , and most will probably understand what happens when you use that x in another operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does seem strange.
If someone doesn't understand that x = 1 + 2 means that 1 + 2  will stored in the variable x (or if they don't understand the sign '+'), they should probably go back to elementary school before they start programming.
Seriously, any average 8-year old could probably tell you what happens in the expression "x = 1 + 2", and most will probably understand what happens when you use that x in another operation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241304</id>
	<title>Appalling</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1259243640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm already appalled just by seeing all these stock happy face images. Also, never heard of it before. What is this for stuff, man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm already appalled just by seeing all these stock happy face images .
Also , never heard of it before .
What is this for stuff , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm already appalled just by seeing all these stock happy face images.
Also, never heard of it before.
What is this for stuff, man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242240</id>
	<title>Why is it always programming?</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1259253540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't someone attack a profession like Law or Medicine with a tool like this? Seriously? Imagine:</p><p>"Our new Suem 4.0 system makes it possible to practice law without passing difficult bar exams!"</p><p>Don't hire expensive lawyers to represent you in court when you can use Suem 4.0 to help you defend yourself! Defend yourself against Murder charges! Rape charges! or even Embezzlement! Now anyone can practice law!</p><p>"Our new Surge 4.0 system makes surgery possible with 90-per cent less precision!"</p><p>Why pay for expensive surgeons when you can operate on your own brain! Perform tumor excisions and Lobotomies in just minutes of training!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't someone attack a profession like Law or Medicine with a tool like this ?
Seriously ? Imagine : " Our new Suem 4.0 system makes it possible to practice law without passing difficult bar exams !
" Do n't hire expensive lawyers to represent you in court when you can use Suem 4.0 to help you defend yourself !
Defend yourself against Murder charges !
Rape charges !
or even Embezzlement !
Now anyone can practice law !
" Our new Surge 4.0 system makes surgery possible with 90-per cent less precision !
" Why pay for expensive surgeons when you can operate on your own brain !
Perform tumor excisions and Lobotomies in just minutes of training !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't someone attack a profession like Law or Medicine with a tool like this?
Seriously? Imagine:"Our new Suem 4.0 system makes it possible to practice law without passing difficult bar exams!
"Don't hire expensive lawyers to represent you in court when you can use Suem 4.0 to help you defend yourself!
Defend yourself against Murder charges!
Rape charges!
or even Embezzlement!
Now anyone can practice law!
"Our new Surge 4.0 system makes surgery possible with 90-per cent less precision!
"Why pay for expensive surgeons when you can operate on your own brain!
Perform tumor excisions and Lobotomies in just minutes of training!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241114</id>
	<title>Any examples of the syntax?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259241900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone post an example of this code?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone post an example of this code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone post an example of this code?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242908</id>
	<title>Speel chekur fur my kode...</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1259260920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with a programming language based on English is that now companies will have to train their programmers on English spelling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with a programming language based on English is that now companies will have to train their programmers on English spelling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with a programming language based on English is that now companies will have to train their programmers on English spelling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244532</id>
	<title>I tried writing a non-programmer programming</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1259326680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>language once, and the syntax turned out to be pretty similar to Rev4.  Basically, one needs a simple way to control flow, a simple way to express logic, a simple way to manipulate data, and a simple way of interacting with the user.</p><p>A huge part of writing an effective language is anticipating how the writer *thinks* something should be stated before they've even tried to write it.  If your target programmer is someone without formal programming training, you want to avoid anything that assumes an understanding of abstract programming concepts such as object orientation.  Rev4's use of natural language "glue" and it's simple verb-object sentence structure follows pretty well the way a non-programmer would think.</p><p>As others have pointed out, however, just simplifying the language is not enough.  To get a real boost in productivity, one needs to add a lot of *useful* abstractions to data manipulation and user interactions.  That generally means lots of pre-built functions that do meaningful work (as the non-programmer would define it) for very little effort.  This is essentially the same role that human vocabulary plays: by using a single word, we can express an entire concept.  Give me a vocabulary with several thousand words and a simple sentence structure, and there's not a lot I can't convey.</p><p>I've only looked at Rev4 very briefly, but it does seems to have a pretty large and useful vocabulary.  There are useful abstractions of data structures (looks a lot like hypercard, actually), useful abstractions of UI, and useful abstractions of string manipulation operations.  I can easily imagine being pretty productive with this as my first programming language.</p><p>All these simplifications and abstractions, of course, come with a cost:  extensibility.  The more lower level a language is, the easier it is to get it to do things not envisioned by the language writer.  I don't know this for sure, but I highly suspect that if the card-stack data abstraction won't cut it for your needs, then writing in Rev4 will be painful and frustrating.</p><p>There will always be a need for varying levels of programming languages.  If a user needs something done that is so easy that it could be done by a non-programmer, then why hire a programmer to do it with a more capable language?  It's not like programmers aren't busy enough.  There's plenty of work for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>language once , and the syntax turned out to be pretty similar to Rev4 .
Basically , one needs a simple way to control flow , a simple way to express logic , a simple way to manipulate data , and a simple way of interacting with the user.A huge part of writing an effective language is anticipating how the writer * thinks * something should be stated before they 've even tried to write it .
If your target programmer is someone without formal programming training , you want to avoid anything that assumes an understanding of abstract programming concepts such as object orientation .
Rev4 's use of natural language " glue " and it 's simple verb-object sentence structure follows pretty well the way a non-programmer would think.As others have pointed out , however , just simplifying the language is not enough .
To get a real boost in productivity , one needs to add a lot of * useful * abstractions to data manipulation and user interactions .
That generally means lots of pre-built functions that do meaningful work ( as the non-programmer would define it ) for very little effort .
This is essentially the same role that human vocabulary plays : by using a single word , we can express an entire concept .
Give me a vocabulary with several thousand words and a simple sentence structure , and there 's not a lot I ca n't convey.I 've only looked at Rev4 very briefly , but it does seems to have a pretty large and useful vocabulary .
There are useful abstractions of data structures ( looks a lot like hypercard , actually ) , useful abstractions of UI , and useful abstractions of string manipulation operations .
I can easily imagine being pretty productive with this as my first programming language.All these simplifications and abstractions , of course , come with a cost : extensibility .
The more lower level a language is , the easier it is to get it to do things not envisioned by the language writer .
I do n't know this for sure , but I highly suspect that if the card-stack data abstraction wo n't cut it for your needs , then writing in Rev4 will be painful and frustrating.There will always be a need for varying levels of programming languages .
If a user needs something done that is so easy that it could be done by a non-programmer , then why hire a programmer to do it with a more capable language ?
It 's not like programmers are n't busy enough .
There 's plenty of work for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>language once, and the syntax turned out to be pretty similar to Rev4.
Basically, one needs a simple way to control flow, a simple way to express logic, a simple way to manipulate data, and a simple way of interacting with the user.A huge part of writing an effective language is anticipating how the writer *thinks* something should be stated before they've even tried to write it.
If your target programmer is someone without formal programming training, you want to avoid anything that assumes an understanding of abstract programming concepts such as object orientation.
Rev4's use of natural language "glue" and it's simple verb-object sentence structure follows pretty well the way a non-programmer would think.As others have pointed out, however, just simplifying the language is not enough.
To get a real boost in productivity, one needs to add a lot of *useful* abstractions to data manipulation and user interactions.
That generally means lots of pre-built functions that do meaningful work (as the non-programmer would define it) for very little effort.
This is essentially the same role that human vocabulary plays: by using a single word, we can express an entire concept.
Give me a vocabulary with several thousand words and a simple sentence structure, and there's not a lot I can't convey.I've only looked at Rev4 very briefly, but it does seems to have a pretty large and useful vocabulary.
There are useful abstractions of data structures (looks a lot like hypercard, actually), useful abstractions of UI, and useful abstractions of string manipulation operations.
I can easily imagine being pretty productive with this as my first programming language.All these simplifications and abstractions, of course, come with a cost:  extensibility.
The more lower level a language is, the easier it is to get it to do things not envisioned by the language writer.
I don't know this for sure, but I highly suspect that if the card-stack data abstraction won't cut it for your needs, then writing in Rev4 will be painful and frustrating.There will always be a need for varying levels of programming languages.
If a user needs something done that is so easy that it could be done by a non-programmer, then why hire a programmer to do it with a more capable language?
It's not like programmers aren't busy enough.
There's plenty of work for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241710</id>
	<title>When will we learn?</title>
	<author>WidgetGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259247300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some reason there are those in the programming profession (usually the "we code to live" crowd who will slide easily into management as soon as possible) who cannot seem to get it into their thick skulls that "everybody wants to program a computer" is just about as true as "everybody wants to repair their own car."  Non-programmers are that way because they are neither emotionally nor intellectually equipped by either nature or nurture to be a  computer programmer (let alone a good one).  Only 1\% of the Earth's population are scientists or engineers.  Making the tools employed by software engineers easier isn't going to make it (more) interesting or any easier for that 99\% of the population who are not.<br> <br>

As far as making programming easier for programmers... Don't you get it?  <i>We like it hard</i>.  The harder the better.  Most of us would be as happy as pigs in shit if our masters would let us program everything up in assembly language.  If we could get away with it, every shell script would be written as one, big, fat, hairy regular expression.  Real programmers don't want "easy," we want "control" and are more than happy to put up with the lack of ease having more control invariably entails.  Programming languages that are more like human languages?  That sounds like documentation to me.  And you know how much programmers love writing documentation.<br> <br>

Computer programmers are not your typical breed of cat.  To us, 200 milliseconds is a long time.  Indeed, every day at work we manipulate space and time with hardly giving it a second thought.  We are the poster children for OCD.  We'd rather be "in the zone" struggling to craft an elegant solution to a very difficult problem than be in the real world struggling with very difficult people.  We despise organized fun.  We can't understand why "normal people" don't get the concept of indirection.  We have <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203094823.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">working memories that rival those of Chimpanzees</a> [sciencedaily.com].  To us, "average," "normal" and "easy" are swear words.  And, truth be told, most of us would do what we do without pay if we could (and, judging by the number of open source programming projects on the Internet, a significant number of us can).  We don't code to live, we live to code.  We can't resist an intellectual challenge.  If you want a programming project done quickly, just tell the programmer(s), "There's no way you can do that in a &lt;pick-your-time-period&gt;!"  The best way to avoid a programmer at family gatherings?  Give him or her a book of (mathematical) puzzles.  You won't see him/her again until every puzzle in that book has been solved.  Does any of this sound like (part of) a description of "your typical business person?"<br> <br>

Programming computers isn't difficult because the tools aren't close enough to English (or whatever human language you prefer).  Programming computers is difficult because highly-structured problem solving is difficult.  And its not really something they teach in school.  Probably because its as hard to teach as are the problems it is most suited to solve.  It may, indeed, be something you can't teach because the student either has "it" or doesn't.  To do it well requires mental discipline, above-average intelligence, attention to detail, the willingness (indeed, insatiable desire) to continually learn new concepts and tools and, most of all, an insane amount of persistence.  Most people don't have that particular constellation of traits.  Making programming tools simpler will not turn these people into programmers any more than the advent of power tools and embedded, computerized control/diagnostic systems turned people who weren't auto mechanics into auto mechanics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason there are those in the programming profession ( usually the " we code to live " crowd who will slide easily into management as soon as possible ) who can not seem to get it into their thick skulls that " everybody wants to program a computer " is just about as true as " everybody wants to repair their own car .
" Non-programmers are that way because they are neither emotionally nor intellectually equipped by either nature or nurture to be a computer programmer ( let alone a good one ) .
Only 1 \ % of the Earth 's population are scientists or engineers .
Making the tools employed by software engineers easier is n't going to make it ( more ) interesting or any easier for that 99 \ % of the population who are not .
As far as making programming easier for programmers... Do n't you get it ?
We like it hard .
The harder the better .
Most of us would be as happy as pigs in shit if our masters would let us program everything up in assembly language .
If we could get away with it , every shell script would be written as one , big , fat , hairy regular expression .
Real programmers do n't want " easy , " we want " control " and are more than happy to put up with the lack of ease having more control invariably entails .
Programming languages that are more like human languages ?
That sounds like documentation to me .
And you know how much programmers love writing documentation .
Computer programmers are not your typical breed of cat .
To us , 200 milliseconds is a long time .
Indeed , every day at work we manipulate space and time with hardly giving it a second thought .
We are the poster children for OCD .
We 'd rather be " in the zone " struggling to craft an elegant solution to a very difficult problem than be in the real world struggling with very difficult people .
We despise organized fun .
We ca n't understand why " normal people " do n't get the concept of indirection .
We have working memories that rival those of Chimpanzees [ sciencedaily.com ] .
To us , " average , " " normal " and " easy " are swear words .
And , truth be told , most of us would do what we do without pay if we could ( and , judging by the number of open source programming projects on the Internet , a significant number of us can ) .
We do n't code to live , we live to code .
We ca n't resist an intellectual challenge .
If you want a programming project done quickly , just tell the programmer ( s ) , " There 's no way you can do that in a !
" The best way to avoid a programmer at family gatherings ?
Give him or her a book of ( mathematical ) puzzles .
You wo n't see him/her again until every puzzle in that book has been solved .
Does any of this sound like ( part of ) a description of " your typical business person ?
" Programming computers is n't difficult because the tools are n't close enough to English ( or whatever human language you prefer ) .
Programming computers is difficult because highly-structured problem solving is difficult .
And its not really something they teach in school .
Probably because its as hard to teach as are the problems it is most suited to solve .
It may , indeed , be something you ca n't teach because the student either has " it " or does n't .
To do it well requires mental discipline , above-average intelligence , attention to detail , the willingness ( indeed , insatiable desire ) to continually learn new concepts and tools and , most of all , an insane amount of persistence .
Most people do n't have that particular constellation of traits .
Making programming tools simpler will not turn these people into programmers any more than the advent of power tools and embedded , computerized control/diagnostic systems turned people who were n't auto mechanics into auto mechanics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason there are those in the programming profession (usually the "we code to live" crowd who will slide easily into management as soon as possible) who cannot seem to get it into their thick skulls that "everybody wants to program a computer" is just about as true as "everybody wants to repair their own car.
"  Non-programmers are that way because they are neither emotionally nor intellectually equipped by either nature or nurture to be a  computer programmer (let alone a good one).
Only 1\% of the Earth's population are scientists or engineers.
Making the tools employed by software engineers easier isn't going to make it (more) interesting or any easier for that 99\% of the population who are not.
As far as making programming easier for programmers... Don't you get it?
We like it hard.
The harder the better.
Most of us would be as happy as pigs in shit if our masters would let us program everything up in assembly language.
If we could get away with it, every shell script would be written as one, big, fat, hairy regular expression.
Real programmers don't want "easy," we want "control" and are more than happy to put up with the lack of ease having more control invariably entails.
Programming languages that are more like human languages?
That sounds like documentation to me.
And you know how much programmers love writing documentation.
Computer programmers are not your typical breed of cat.
To us, 200 milliseconds is a long time.
Indeed, every day at work we manipulate space and time with hardly giving it a second thought.
We are the poster children for OCD.
We'd rather be "in the zone" struggling to craft an elegant solution to a very difficult problem than be in the real world struggling with very difficult people.
We despise organized fun.
We can't understand why "normal people" don't get the concept of indirection.
We have working memories that rival those of Chimpanzees [sciencedaily.com].
To us, "average," "normal" and "easy" are swear words.
And, truth be told, most of us would do what we do without pay if we could (and, judging by the number of open source programming projects on the Internet, a significant number of us can).
We don't code to live, we live to code.
We can't resist an intellectual challenge.
If you want a programming project done quickly, just tell the programmer(s), "There's no way you can do that in a !
"  The best way to avoid a programmer at family gatherings?
Give him or her a book of (mathematical) puzzles.
You won't see him/her again until every puzzle in that book has been solved.
Does any of this sound like (part of) a description of "your typical business person?
" 

Programming computers isn't difficult because the tools aren't close enough to English (or whatever human language you prefer).
Programming computers is difficult because highly-structured problem solving is difficult.
And its not really something they teach in school.
Probably because its as hard to teach as are the problems it is most suited to solve.
It may, indeed, be something you can't teach because the student either has "it" or doesn't.
To do it well requires mental discipline, above-average intelligence, attention to detail, the willingness (indeed, insatiable desire) to continually learn new concepts and tools and, most of all, an insane amount of persistence.
Most people don't have that particular constellation of traits.
Making programming tools simpler will not turn these people into programmers any more than the advent of power tools and embedded, computerized control/diagnostic systems turned people who weren't auto mechanics into auto mechanics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242880</id>
	<title>Re:AppleScript?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259260500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they both come from HyperTalk, I'd be surprised if it *didn't* look like AppleScript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they both come from HyperTalk , I 'd be surprised if it * did n't * look like AppleScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they both come from HyperTalk, I'd be surprised if it *didn't* look like AppleScript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30248252</id>
	<title>Just for posterity</title>
	<author>whyde</author>
	<datestamp>1259312400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(I'm only posting this because I want it archived with this article.)</p><p>This reminds me of the paper "The Camel Has Two Humps," which details the author's theory that some people just aren't cut out for computer programming because they lack the ability to conceptualize in a machine-friendly manner.</p><p>This is a problem that is not best served by "dumbing down" computers to be useable by people who have no business programming them, in the same manner as television shows should not be dumbed down to be readily accessible to the visually-impaired.</p><p>Why is so little effort being spent making it easy for me to repair my own car with soft, clean, lego-like tools?</p><p>If you want to be a plumber, you have to be willing to occasionally shove your arm into a pile of s#it to solve a problem.<br>If you want to program computers, you have to be willing to occasionally shove your brain into a pile of mathematics to solve a problem.</p><p>I'll believe computer programming is "ready for the masses" when plumbing is "ready for the masses".</p><p>It's all about the tubes, people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( I 'm only posting this because I want it archived with this article .
) This reminds me of the paper " The Camel Has Two Humps , " which details the author 's theory that some people just are n't cut out for computer programming because they lack the ability to conceptualize in a machine-friendly manner.This is a problem that is not best served by " dumbing down " computers to be useable by people who have no business programming them , in the same manner as television shows should not be dumbed down to be readily accessible to the visually-impaired.Why is so little effort being spent making it easy for me to repair my own car with soft , clean , lego-like tools ? If you want to be a plumber , you have to be willing to occasionally shove your arm into a pile of s # it to solve a problem.If you want to program computers , you have to be willing to occasionally shove your brain into a pile of mathematics to solve a problem.I 'll believe computer programming is " ready for the masses " when plumbing is " ready for the masses " .It 's all about the tubes , people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I'm only posting this because I want it archived with this article.
)This reminds me of the paper "The Camel Has Two Humps," which details the author's theory that some people just aren't cut out for computer programming because they lack the ability to conceptualize in a machine-friendly manner.This is a problem that is not best served by "dumbing down" computers to be useable by people who have no business programming them, in the same manner as television shows should not be dumbed down to be readily accessible to the visually-impaired.Why is so little effort being spent making it easy for me to repair my own car with soft, clean, lego-like tools?If you want to be a plumber, you have to be willing to occasionally shove your arm into a pile of s#it to solve a problem.If you want to program computers, you have to be willing to occasionally shove your brain into a pile of mathematics to solve a problem.I'll believe computer programming is "ready for the masses" when plumbing is "ready for the masses".It's all about the tubes, people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239956</id>
	<title>Its been being "dumbed down" since the start</title>
	<author>jaymz2k4</author>
	<datestamp>1259232900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The development of new languages and new ways of simplifying coding has been a part of the computer landscape since the whole thing began. You can argue that coding in Python is a form of "dumbed down" assembly. I wouldn't think of creating a webapp with assembly! Django has "dumbed down" much of the mundane parts I often have to create and dealing with forms and templating. But the one thing I have noticed is that no matter how easy "programming" gets there are still people that will just not "do it".<br> <br>
I still can't see the masses suddenly deciding that they're going to program applications now. Hell, most of the people I know think conditional formatting in excel is just too much effort. I can see this just being used by <em>actual</em> programmers <em>for</em> users but I dont think it will see in a swath of uber-uber-amateur programmers all of a sudden.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The development of new languages and new ways of simplifying coding has been a part of the computer landscape since the whole thing began .
You can argue that coding in Python is a form of " dumbed down " assembly .
I would n't think of creating a webapp with assembly !
Django has " dumbed down " much of the mundane parts I often have to create and dealing with forms and templating .
But the one thing I have noticed is that no matter how easy " programming " gets there are still people that will just not " do it " .
I still ca n't see the masses suddenly deciding that they 're going to program applications now .
Hell , most of the people I know think conditional formatting in excel is just too much effort .
I can see this just being used by actual programmers for users but I dont think it will see in a swath of uber-uber-amateur programmers all of a sudden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The development of new languages and new ways of simplifying coding has been a part of the computer landscape since the whole thing began.
You can argue that coding in Python is a form of "dumbed down" assembly.
I wouldn't think of creating a webapp with assembly!
Django has "dumbed down" much of the mundane parts I often have to create and dealing with forms and templating.
But the one thing I have noticed is that no matter how easy "programming" gets there are still people that will just not "do it".
I still can't see the masses suddenly deciding that they're going to program applications now.
Hell, most of the people I know think conditional formatting in excel is just too much effort.
I can see this just being used by actual programmers for users but I dont think it will see in a swath of uber-uber-amateur programmers all of a sudden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244238</id>
	<title>Re:90\% claim is fake</title>
	<author>MerryOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1259322360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't you making the point? Your examples of one-liners are not something I would consider "human-readable." It probably took a lot more effort to construct them, too.

Why should a decent programming language require such byzantine constructions in order to be considered "real?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't you making the point ?
Your examples of one-liners are not something I would consider " human-readable .
" It probably took a lot more effort to construct them , too .
Why should a decent programming language require such byzantine constructions in order to be considered " real ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't you making the point?
Your examples of one-liners are not something I would consider "human-readable.
" It probably took a lot more effort to construct them, too.
Why should a decent programming language require such byzantine constructions in order to be considered "real?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245214</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, yet exaggerated...</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1259335560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I decided to look at the php one properly.  Their php code, which I had to type out manually because their pdf (2.3MB! for a single page) is used to contain a picture, doesn't work.  There seem to be several bugs I fixed two then gave up since it was easier just to rewrite the damn thing.  Secondly the php, even if it wasn't buggy, would produce different output to their revtalk code since the revtalk function returns a string of space separated words (I think, I can't run their code) whereas the php returns an associative array which they the concatenate into a comma separated string outside of the function.</p><p>After a rewrite the php code was 16 lines after formatting with the same white space as their rev code (one empty line).</p><p><a href="http://pastebin.com/m152a1a0a" title="pastebin.com">http://pastebin.com/m152a1a0a</a> [pastebin.com]</p><p>I will admit that it is not very pretty code and I couldn't be bothered to comment it but I haven't used any tricks like sticking lots of functions onto one big line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I decided to look at the php one properly .
Their php code , which I had to type out manually because their pdf ( 2.3MB !
for a single page ) is used to contain a picture , does n't work .
There seem to be several bugs I fixed two then gave up since it was easier just to rewrite the damn thing .
Secondly the php , even if it was n't buggy , would produce different output to their revtalk code since the revtalk function returns a string of space separated words ( I think , I ca n't run their code ) whereas the php returns an associative array which they the concatenate into a comma separated string outside of the function.After a rewrite the php code was 16 lines after formatting with the same white space as their rev code ( one empty line ) .http : //pastebin.com/m152a1a0a [ pastebin.com ] I will admit that it is not very pretty code and I could n't be bothered to comment it but I have n't used any tricks like sticking lots of functions onto one big line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I decided to look at the php one properly.
Their php code, which I had to type out manually because their pdf (2.3MB!
for a single page) is used to contain a picture, doesn't work.
There seem to be several bugs I fixed two then gave up since it was easier just to rewrite the damn thing.
Secondly the php, even if it wasn't buggy, would produce different output to their revtalk code since the revtalk function returns a string of space separated words (I think, I can't run their code) whereas the php returns an associative array which they the concatenate into a comma separated string outside of the function.After a rewrite the php code was 16 lines after formatting with the same white space as their rev code (one empty line).http://pastebin.com/m152a1a0a [pastebin.com]I will admit that it is not very pretty code and I couldn't be bothered to comment it but I haven't used any tricks like sticking lots of functions onto one big line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240340</id>
	<title>Few things....</title>
	<author>dragisha</author>
	<datestamp>1259236260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) Any system even fools can use - will be used only by fools.</p><p>b) I really liked these "up to"s... They tell so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) Any system even fools can use - will be used only by fools.b ) I really liked these " up to " s... They tell so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) Any system even fools can use - will be used only by fools.b) I really liked these "up to"s... They tell so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244472</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really dumbing down?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259325840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240692</id>
	<title>fast and easy: no monopoles, please!</title>
	<author>10am-bedtime</author>
	<datestamp>1259238840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a programmer around long enough to literally hear bulldozers and
chain-link fences clinking around big holes in the ground at the sight of the
word "developer".  (Insert more hallucinogenic curmudgeonly grumbling here.)</p><p>More on topic, I have no qualms admitting that "fast and easy" programming
"solutions" might indeed be so, but still can't help but wonder what else is
missing.  What are the <b>consequences</b> of "fast and easy" programming?</p><p>Those words bring to mind news articles of car and train wrecks, where
speed is always an aggravating factor, and attaining that speed never seems
too difficult or too ambitious at the onset, prior to the accident.</p><p>A wreck is definitely not desirable if one aspires to Quality (in the ZAMM
--Pirsig sense), for a wreck completely removes the moment of perception from
the scene, by removing the perceiver (or more precisely, the motivating force
(perhaps in the gravest cases, the life) of the perceiver).</p><p>I think, rather than pushing "fast and easy", a better pair of adjectives
would be "strong and flexible" (like a rope, or a towel, say).  The programming
languages, environments and mindsets based on these fundamental metaphors admit
guidance from a mentor (on the "other end" of the experience divide, pulling)
quite readily.</p><p>The consequences may in the end result in "fast and easy" development of
the program, of the programmer, of the mindset, anyway.  It depends not only
on the budding programmer, but also on the relationship between the teacher
and the student (both of whom may be the same programmer, why not?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a programmer around long enough to literally hear bulldozers and chain-link fences clinking around big holes in the ground at the sight of the word " developer " .
( Insert more hallucinogenic curmudgeonly grumbling here .
) More on topic , I have no qualms admitting that " fast and easy " programming " solutions " might indeed be so , but still ca n't help but wonder what else is missing .
What are the consequences of " fast and easy " programming ? Those words bring to mind news articles of car and train wrecks , where speed is always an aggravating factor , and attaining that speed never seems too difficult or too ambitious at the onset , prior to the accident.A wreck is definitely not desirable if one aspires to Quality ( in the ZAMM --Pirsig sense ) , for a wreck completely removes the moment of perception from the scene , by removing the perceiver ( or more precisely , the motivating force ( perhaps in the gravest cases , the life ) of the perceiver ) .I think , rather than pushing " fast and easy " , a better pair of adjectives would be " strong and flexible " ( like a rope , or a towel , say ) .
The programming languages , environments and mindsets based on these fundamental metaphors admit guidance from a mentor ( on the " other end " of the experience divide , pulling ) quite readily.The consequences may in the end result in " fast and easy " development of the program , of the programmer , of the mindset , anyway .
It depends not only on the budding programmer , but also on the relationship between the teacher and the student ( both of whom may be the same programmer , why not ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a programmer around long enough to literally hear bulldozers and
chain-link fences clinking around big holes in the ground at the sight of the
word "developer".
(Insert more hallucinogenic curmudgeonly grumbling here.
)More on topic, I have no qualms admitting that "fast and easy" programming
"solutions" might indeed be so, but still can't help but wonder what else is
missing.
What are the consequences of "fast and easy" programming?Those words bring to mind news articles of car and train wrecks, where
speed is always an aggravating factor, and attaining that speed never seems
too difficult or too ambitious at the onset, prior to the accident.A wreck is definitely not desirable if one aspires to Quality (in the ZAMM
--Pirsig sense), for a wreck completely removes the moment of perception from
the scene, by removing the perceiver (or more precisely, the motivating force
(perhaps in the gravest cases, the life) of the perceiver).I think, rather than pushing "fast and easy", a better pair of adjectives
would be "strong and flexible" (like a rope, or a towel, say).
The programming
languages, environments and mindsets based on these fundamental metaphors admit
guidance from a mentor (on the "other end" of the experience divide, pulling)
quite readily.The consequences may in the end result in "fast and easy" development of
the program, of the programmer, of the mindset, anyway.
It depends not only
on the budding programmer, but also on the relationship between the teacher
and the student (both of whom may be the same programmer, why not?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242830</id>
	<title>Feasability and Readability</title>
	<author>MerryOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1259259720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I think there are two key advantages to revTalk.<br><br>1) It enables people who are not full-time programmers to undertake projects they normally wouldn't consider doing otherwise. It's possibly true that someone who knows a more traditional language could write something that executes faster or more efficiently, but if you reduce a five-hour process down to 10 minutes, you're still getting a significant boost in productivity, even if "real" programmer could write code that did the process in 3 minutes.<br><br>2) It is definitely more readable, and often shorter. As an example, there was a "readbility challenge" for coding a while back. The task was to write a routine that would determine all possible two-word anagrams given a starting word and a word list. See http://selfexplanatorycode.blogspot.com/<br><br>I can't post the code of the winning entry; Slashdot reports "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. But you can find it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/sdcc1/comments/6wru4/leonardo/<br><br>--------<br>And here is the code in revTalk:<br><br>constant alphabet = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"<br>on mouseUp<br>&nbsp; put "documenting" into sourceWord<br>&nbsp; put url "http://someserver.com/wordlist.txt" into wordList<br>&nbsp; repeat for each character c in alphabet<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; if c is not in sourceWord then filter wordList without ("*" &amp; c &amp; "*")<br>&nbsp; end repeat<br>&nbsp; put sortWord(sourceWord) into sourceWord<br>&nbsp; repeat for each line firstWord in wordList<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; repeat for each line secondWord in wordList<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; put firstWord &amp; secondWord into testWord<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if the length of testWord is the length of sourceWord then<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if sortWord(testWord) is sourceWord then<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; put firstWord &amp;&amp; secondWord &amp; return after anagramList<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; end if<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; end if<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; end repeat<br>&nbsp; end repeat<br>&nbsp; put anagramList<br>end mouseUp<br><br>function sortWord theWord<br>&nbsp; repeat for each character c in theWord<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; put c &amp; return after theSortedWord<br>&nbsp; end repeat<br>&nbsp; sort theSortedWord<br>&nbsp; replace return with empty in theSortedWord<br>&nbsp; return theSortedWord<br>end sortWord<br><br>It is shorter and (in my opinion) much more readable.<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are two key advantages to revTalk.1 ) It enables people who are not full-time programmers to undertake projects they normally would n't consider doing otherwise .
It 's possibly true that someone who knows a more traditional language could write something that executes faster or more efficiently , but if you reduce a five-hour process down to 10 minutes , you 're still getting a significant boost in productivity , even if " real " programmer could write code that did the process in 3 minutes.2 ) It is definitely more readable , and often shorter .
As an example , there was a " readbility challenge " for coding a while back .
The task was to write a routine that would determine all possible two-word anagrams given a starting word and a word list .
See http : //selfexplanatorycode.blogspot.com/I ca n't post the code of the winning entry ; Slashdot reports " Filter error : Please use fewer 'junk ' characters .
But you can find it here : http : //www.reddit.com/r/sdcc1/comments/6wru4/leonardo/--------And here is the code in revTalk : constant alphabet = " abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz " on mouseUp   put " documenting " into sourceWord   put url " http : //someserver.com/wordlist.txt " into wordList   repeat for each character c in alphabet     if c is not in sourceWord then filter wordList without ( " * " &amp; c &amp; " * " )   end repeat   put sortWord ( sourceWord ) into sourceWord   repeat for each line firstWord in wordList     repeat for each line secondWord in wordList       put firstWord &amp; secondWord into testWord       if the length of testWord is the length of sourceWord then         if sortWord ( testWord ) is sourceWord then           put firstWord &amp;&amp; secondWord &amp; return after anagramList         end if       end if     end repeat   end repeat   put anagramListend mouseUpfunction sortWord theWord   repeat for each character c in theWord     put c &amp; return after theSortedWord   end repeat   sort theSortedWord   replace return with empty in theSortedWord   return theSortedWordend sortWordIt is shorter and ( in my opinion ) much more readable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are two key advantages to revTalk.1) It enables people who are not full-time programmers to undertake projects they normally wouldn't consider doing otherwise.
It's possibly true that someone who knows a more traditional language could write something that executes faster or more efficiently, but if you reduce a five-hour process down to 10 minutes, you're still getting a significant boost in productivity, even if "real" programmer could write code that did the process in 3 minutes.2) It is definitely more readable, and often shorter.
As an example, there was a "readbility challenge" for coding a while back.
The task was to write a routine that would determine all possible two-word anagrams given a starting word and a word list.
See http://selfexplanatorycode.blogspot.com/I can't post the code of the winning entry; Slashdot reports "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
But you can find it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/sdcc1/comments/6wru4/leonardo/--------And here is the code in revTalk:constant alphabet = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"on mouseUp  put "documenting" into sourceWord  put url "http://someserver.com/wordlist.txt" into wordList  repeat for each character c in alphabet    if c is not in sourceWord then filter wordList without ("*" &amp; c &amp; "*")  end repeat  put sortWord(sourceWord) into sourceWord  repeat for each line firstWord in wordList    repeat for each line secondWord in wordList      put firstWord &amp; secondWord into testWord      if the length of testWord is the length of sourceWord then        if sortWord(testWord) is sourceWord then          put firstWord &amp;&amp; secondWord &amp; return after anagramList        end if      end if    end repeat  end repeat  put anagramListend mouseUpfunction sortWord theWord  repeat for each character c in theWord    put c &amp; return after theSortedWord  end repeat  sort theSortedWord  replace return with empty in theSortedWord  return theSortedWordend sortWordIt is shorter and (in my opinion) much more readable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242776</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, yet exaggerated...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1259258940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"get the last item of line 2 of URL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>What the heck is an item and a line?  To understand this example, I had to read the C#/Java code.  That kind of dumb example would make me avoid this language entirely.  This is worse than when Microsoft does their "make a database app in 3 clicks" demos where they have tons of contrived stuff setup, and they just run Visual Studio and drag something from point A to point B and pretend that was it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" get the last item of line 2 of URL ... " What the heck is an item and a line ?
To understand this example , I had to read the C # /Java code .
That kind of dumb example would make me avoid this language entirely .
This is worse than when Microsoft does their " make a database app in 3 clicks " demos where they have tons of contrived stuff setup , and they just run Visual Studio and drag something from point A to point B and pretend that was it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"get the last item of line 2 of URL ..."What the heck is an item and a line?
To understand this example, I had to read the C#/Java code.
That kind of dumb example would make me avoid this language entirely.
This is worse than when Microsoft does their "make a database app in 3 clicks" demos where they have tons of contrived stuff setup, and they just run Visual Studio and drag something from point A to point B and pretend that was it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244178</id>
	<title>Dumbing down...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1259321340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make programming more accessible to people with limited knowledge in the field, you will end up with lots of barely working programs... Some of these programs will get used in situations where they really shouldn't, and are likely to have lots of bugs and/or security holes. You already see it, it's very easy for novices to write programs in visual basic or php, so you see lots of very sloppy programs out there with lots of security holes...</p><p>As someone who runs a webserver hosting sites for other people, a lot of these people upload very shoddily written php code that gets exploited. I had a spam outbreak a couple of days ago because someone managed to find a vulnerability in a php script that let them run arbitrary commands as the webserver user.</p><p>That said, i think computers should encourage users to learn by default, like they used to do in the days of BASIC being built in. Computer back then had a relatively simple programming language built in, and would come with big thick printed manuals encouraging you to learn about it...<br>Today you get thin paper instructions that barely cover how to unpack the box, and software that goes out of its way to hide the underlying system from the pretty interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make programming more accessible to people with limited knowledge in the field , you will end up with lots of barely working programs... Some of these programs will get used in situations where they really should n't , and are likely to have lots of bugs and/or security holes .
You already see it , it 's very easy for novices to write programs in visual basic or php , so you see lots of very sloppy programs out there with lots of security holes...As someone who runs a webserver hosting sites for other people , a lot of these people upload very shoddily written php code that gets exploited .
I had a spam outbreak a couple of days ago because someone managed to find a vulnerability in a php script that let them run arbitrary commands as the webserver user.That said , i think computers should encourage users to learn by default , like they used to do in the days of BASIC being built in .
Computer back then had a relatively simple programming language built in , and would come with big thick printed manuals encouraging you to learn about it...Today you get thin paper instructions that barely cover how to unpack the box , and software that goes out of its way to hide the underlying system from the pretty interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make programming more accessible to people with limited knowledge in the field, you will end up with lots of barely working programs... Some of these programs will get used in situations where they really shouldn't, and are likely to have lots of bugs and/or security holes.
You already see it, it's very easy for novices to write programs in visual basic or php, so you see lots of very sloppy programs out there with lots of security holes...As someone who runs a webserver hosting sites for other people, a lot of these people upload very shoddily written php code that gets exploited.
I had a spam outbreak a couple of days ago because someone managed to find a vulnerability in a php script that let them run arbitrary commands as the webserver user.That said, i think computers should encourage users to learn by default, like they used to do in the days of BASIC being built in.
Computer back then had a relatively simple programming language built in, and would come with big thick printed manuals encouraging you to learn about it...Today you get thin paper instructions that barely cover how to unpack the box, and software that goes out of its way to hide the underlying system from the pretty interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30249260</id>
	<title>Re:Slick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259318160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that every positive comment on ZDdnet's was written by members as old as the article! All very pathetic, but at least keeps you "entertained" for a couple minutes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that every positive comment on ZDdnet 's was written by members as old as the article !
All very pathetic , but at least keeps you " entertained " for a couple minutes : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that every positive comment on ZDdnet's was written by members as old as the article!
All very pathetic, but at least keeps you "entertained" for a couple minutes :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240530</id>
	<title>Re:Read-only languages...</title>
	<author>grouchomarxist</author>
	<datestamp>1259237640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's pretty true. AppleScript can be a real pain to program in. One of the engineers who worked on AppleScript told me he avoids programming in it. It makes some things easy and other things are a real pain in the ass. It doesn't help that Apple has barely improved it in the years since it was originally developed.</p><p>Until they make some kind of AI-type breakthrough in programming languages, using these kind of languages will not really make programming easier. Perhaps some aspects of programming can be made easier, but they're often at the expense of other parts of the language. I'm not against making programming easier, but I'm waiting for a real breakthrough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's pretty true .
AppleScript can be a real pain to program in .
One of the engineers who worked on AppleScript told me he avoids programming in it .
It makes some things easy and other things are a real pain in the ass .
It does n't help that Apple has barely improved it in the years since it was originally developed.Until they make some kind of AI-type breakthrough in programming languages , using these kind of languages will not really make programming easier .
Perhaps some aspects of programming can be made easier , but they 're often at the expense of other parts of the language .
I 'm not against making programming easier , but I 'm waiting for a real breakthrough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's pretty true.
AppleScript can be a real pain to program in.
One of the engineers who worked on AppleScript told me he avoids programming in it.
It makes some things easy and other things are a real pain in the ass.
It doesn't help that Apple has barely improved it in the years since it was originally developed.Until they make some kind of AI-type breakthrough in programming languages, using these kind of languages will not really make programming easier.
Perhaps some aspects of programming can be made easier, but they're often at the expense of other parts of the language.
I'm not against making programming easier, but I'm waiting for a real breakthrough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242400</id>
	<title>well...</title>
	<author>zomgman</author>
	<datestamp>1259254980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>++++++++++&gt;[-&gt;++++++++++++&gt;+++++++++++&gt;++++++++++&gt;+++&gt;++++++++++&gt;++++++++++---.&gt;+++++.&gt;+.&gt;++.&gt;--.&gt;++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ + + + + + + + + + &gt; [ - &gt; + + + + + + + + + + + + &gt; + + + + + + + + + + + &gt; + + + + + + + + + + &gt; + + + &gt; + + + + + + + + + + &gt; + + + + + + + + + + ---. &gt; + + + + + . &gt; + . &gt; + + . &gt; --. &gt; + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>++++++++++&gt;[-&gt;++++++++++++&gt;+++++++++++&gt;++++++++++&gt;+++&gt;++++++++++&gt;++++++++++---.&gt;+++++.&gt;+.&gt;++.&gt;--.&gt;++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018</id>
	<title>Submarine article</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259233500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/" title="paulgraham.com">Paul Graham</a> [paulgraham.com] wrote a <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html" title="paulgraham.com">very informative article</a> [paulgraham.com] about "news stories" like this one many years ago. And congrats to the company behind RunRev, it is not that often<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. runs slashvertizements for costly commerical software no one has ever heard of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paul Graham [ paulgraham.com ] wrote a very informative article [ paulgraham.com ] about " news stories " like this one many years ago .
And congrats to the company behind RunRev , it is not that often / .
runs slashvertizements for costly commerical software no one has ever heard of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paul Graham [paulgraham.com] wrote a very informative article [paulgraham.com] about "news stories" like this one many years ago.
And congrats to the company behind RunRev, it is not that often /.
runs slashvertizements for costly commerical software no one has ever heard of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247344</id>
	<title>Model Masters sez:</title>
	<author>Model Masters</author>
	<datestamp>1259349900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"revTalk" is the language
and "RunRev" is the company name</htmltext>
<tokenext>" revTalk " is the language and " RunRev " is the company name</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"revTalk" is the language
and "RunRev" is the company name</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240630</id>
	<title>Long live Hypercard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, Hypercard is what got me started programming. There were few other options available at the 10 year old level. The "open-source" nature of Hypercard where all the code that runs the stack is visible to the end user makes it easy to learn how someone is doing that sweet thing you've never seen.</p><p>More power to easy languages, and even more to an IDE that someone with a Kid Pix based computer background can pick up and run with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , Hypercard is what got me started programming .
There were few other options available at the 10 year old level .
The " open-source " nature of Hypercard where all the code that runs the stack is visible to the end user makes it easy to learn how someone is doing that sweet thing you 've never seen.More power to easy languages , and even more to an IDE that someone with a Kid Pix based computer background can pick up and run with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, Hypercard is what got me started programming.
There were few other options available at the 10 year old level.
The "open-source" nature of Hypercard where all the code that runs the stack is visible to the end user makes it easy to learn how someone is doing that sweet thing you've never seen.More power to easy languages, and even more to an IDE that someone with a Kid Pix based computer background can pick up and run with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240326</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All my life, I have searched for a car that feels a certain way. Powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a Nerf ball. Now, at last, I have found it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All my life , I have searched for a car that feels a certain way .
Powerful like a gorilla , yet soft and yielding like a Nerf ball .
Now , at last , I have found it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All my life, I have searched for a car that feels a certain way.
Powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a Nerf ball.
Now, at last, I have found it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240322</id>
	<title>Even in Universities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can be seen even in universities, there are CS majors with no education in ASSEMBLER or C during the whole studies, some haven't even used C++.</p><p>And money dictates here too.  We are forced to study that horrible, disturbed nightmare that is Symbian for mobile development class, although I did manage to talk the lecturer into allowing one half of the course test to be for Android if one wanted it to.</p><p>I don't consider myself a good coder; my experience comes via a hobby from a simple c-like language which pretends to have objects.  I've also seen some so, so much better coders, especially within in the demo scene, but even I can see that the level of a regular CS student is horrible.  There are few rare gems out there, but the average is nasty. It'd be absurd to expect them to learn those languages to any decent level within the regular course times either.</p><p>The efficiency of one's code is hardly ever noted within courses.  It's good if it works.  There's probably just so huge need for 'bulk coders' and other 'it professionals' that they've had to dumb down most of the courses.  There are only a few rare courses which really challenge you (logic programming being the usual cause), and they're not needed to get the papers.</p><p>It's infuriating having to drowse through such highest level education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This can be seen even in universities , there are CS majors with no education in ASSEMBLER or C during the whole studies , some have n't even used C + + .And money dictates here too .
We are forced to study that horrible , disturbed nightmare that is Symbian for mobile development class , although I did manage to talk the lecturer into allowing one half of the course test to be for Android if one wanted it to.I do n't consider myself a good coder ; my experience comes via a hobby from a simple c-like language which pretends to have objects .
I 've also seen some so , so much better coders , especially within in the demo scene , but even I can see that the level of a regular CS student is horrible .
There are few rare gems out there , but the average is nasty .
It 'd be absurd to expect them to learn those languages to any decent level within the regular course times either.The efficiency of one 's code is hardly ever noted within courses .
It 's good if it works .
There 's probably just so huge need for 'bulk coders ' and other 'it professionals ' that they 've had to dumb down most of the courses .
There are only a few rare courses which really challenge you ( logic programming being the usual cause ) , and they 're not needed to get the papers.It 's infuriating having to drowse through such highest level education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can be seen even in universities, there are CS majors with no education in ASSEMBLER or C during the whole studies, some haven't even used C++.And money dictates here too.
We are forced to study that horrible, disturbed nightmare that is Symbian for mobile development class, although I did manage to talk the lecturer into allowing one half of the course test to be for Android if one wanted it to.I don't consider myself a good coder; my experience comes via a hobby from a simple c-like language which pretends to have objects.
I've also seen some so, so much better coders, especially within in the demo scene, but even I can see that the level of a regular CS student is horrible.
There are few rare gems out there, but the average is nasty.
It'd be absurd to expect them to learn those languages to any decent level within the regular course times either.The efficiency of one's code is hardly ever noted within courses.
It's good if it works.
There's probably just so huge need for 'bulk coders' and other 'it professionals' that they've had to dumb down most of the courses.
There are only a few rare courses which really challenge you (logic programming being the usual cause), and they're not needed to get the papers.It's infuriating having to drowse through such highest level education.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30256778</id>
	<title>Good for management-types...</title>
	<author>CyberDong</author>
	<datestamp>1259403180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A language like this will allow management types to do their own prototyping.  This could mean less hassle for programmers, as the manager can flesh out a working prototype t use as a model for production apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A language like this will allow management types to do their own prototyping .
This could mean less hassle for programmers , as the manager can flesh out a working prototype t use as a model for production apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A language like this will allow management types to do their own prototyping.
This could mean less hassle for programmers, as the manager can flesh out a working prototype t use as a model for production apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240000</id>
	<title>It actually doesn't look that good</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mind you I only skimmed a couple pages in the tutorial but it's just a programming language adding more words and more typing because it may do something like spell out add rather than using +. That may let idiots grasp programming a bit more than they would have before but programming as it is does not require a degree in rocket science. It just requires that you actually have enthusiasm for rather than thinking it's just a way to make lots of money.
<br> <br>
Not everyone is a programmer just as not everyone is a mechanic, painter, etc. I don't think we have a lack of programmers but a lack of dirt cheap programmers and companies will do whatever they can to lower wages. Perhaps they'd be better off make better programs to earn more profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mind you I only skimmed a couple pages in the tutorial but it 's just a programming language adding more words and more typing because it may do something like spell out add rather than using + .
That may let idiots grasp programming a bit more than they would have before but programming as it is does not require a degree in rocket science .
It just requires that you actually have enthusiasm for rather than thinking it 's just a way to make lots of money .
Not everyone is a programmer just as not everyone is a mechanic , painter , etc .
I do n't think we have a lack of programmers but a lack of dirt cheap programmers and companies will do whatever they can to lower wages .
Perhaps they 'd be better off make better programs to earn more profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mind you I only skimmed a couple pages in the tutorial but it's just a programming language adding more words and more typing because it may do something like spell out add rather than using +.
That may let idiots grasp programming a bit more than they would have before but programming as it is does not require a degree in rocket science.
It just requires that you actually have enthusiasm for rather than thinking it's just a way to make lots of money.
Not everyone is a programmer just as not everyone is a mechanic, painter, etc.
I don't think we have a lack of programmers but a lack of dirt cheap programmers and companies will do whatever they can to lower wages.
Perhaps they'd be better off make better programs to earn more profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241232</id>
	<title>Less code = faster?</title>
	<author>henrypijames</author>
	<datestamp>1259242980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "I suppose that adds up, 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster."</p><p>Really? I suppose you can write haiku ten times faster than stream-of-conscious recordings, too?</p><p>There's one thing that computer code and natural language text have in common: For both, confusing "writing" with "typing" is moronic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " I suppose that adds up , 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster. " Really ?
I suppose you can write haiku ten times faster than stream-of-conscious recordings , too ? There 's one thing that computer code and natural language text have in common : For both , confusing " writing " with " typing " is moronic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "I suppose that adds up, 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster."Really?
I suppose you can write haiku ten times faster than stream-of-conscious recordings, too?There's one thing that computer code and natural language text have in common: For both, confusing "writing" with "typing" is moronic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240842</id>
	<title>Stupid argument</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1259239860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said the same thing about COBOL.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said the same thing about COBOL.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said the same thing about COBOL.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243890</id>
	<title>Re:Slick</title>
	<author>whyloginwhysubscribe</author>
	<datestamp>1259317680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But has anyone actually done that?
<br>
<br>
I went to the site and looked for sample code / screen shots - then I looked at the videos and it was like watching an infomercial or QVC, so I put my foot through my monitor and sent them the bill!
<br>
<br>
I don't think many slashdot readers will fall for it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But has anyone actually done that ?
I went to the site and looked for sample code / screen shots - then I looked at the videos and it was like watching an infomercial or QVC , so I put my foot through my monitor and sent them the bill !
I do n't think many slashdot readers will fall for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But has anyone actually done that?
I went to the site and looked for sample code / screen shots - then I looked at the videos and it was like watching an infomercial or QVC, so I put my foot through my monitor and sent them the bill!
I don't think many slashdot readers will fall for it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244780</id>
	<title>Re:It actually doesn't look that good</title>
	<author>chthon</author>
	<datestamp>1259331120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(vector-push my-array (aref all-items 1))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( vector-push my-array ( aref all-items 1 ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(vector-push my-array (aref all-items 1))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243492</id>
	<title>if only</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1259312520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is advertising disguised as a question, kind of the opposite of "when did you stop beating your wife".</p><p>I suppose if you define "traditional languages" as C or assembly language, then you might save 90\% of the code.  Compared to other scripting languages, however, Revolution is a mess.  The Revolution environment may help you get started programming, but it would almost certainly be a better and more effective environment if they dumped their awful scripting language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is advertising disguised as a question , kind of the opposite of " when did you stop beating your wife " .I suppose if you define " traditional languages " as C or assembly language , then you might save 90 \ % of the code .
Compared to other scripting languages , however , Revolution is a mess .
The Revolution environment may help you get started programming , but it would almost certainly be a better and more effective environment if they dumped their awful scripting language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is advertising disguised as a question, kind of the opposite of "when did you stop beating your wife".I suppose if you define "traditional languages" as C or assembly language, then you might save 90\% of the code.
Compared to other scripting languages, however, Revolution is a mess.
The Revolution environment may help you get started programming, but it would almost certainly be a better and more effective environment if they dumped their awful scripting language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243252</id>
	<title>RPGMaker does this nicely</title>
	<author>WizzardX</author>
	<datestamp>1259352420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One interesting example of "dumbing down programming" is the RPGMaker series, particularly the VX and XP versions.</p><p>You can do basically all of your game eventing, scripting, resource editing, etc, a using user-friendly gui, no need to touch programming code. And you can do some fairly involved "eventing" logic, which is basically a very high level scripting language that you edit through user-friendly dialogue boxes.</p><p>But you can also start digging into the lower details. Actually, the core of the RPGMaker game engine is Ruby code, including an interpreter, which loads, interprets, etc the above resources. And that engine is very easy to extend, using custom Ruby coding. And in fact there is a huge number of custom scripts you can download from third parties to customize your games that way. Basically you can customize just about anything that way, except for the user-friendly editor that most people use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One interesting example of " dumbing down programming " is the RPGMaker series , particularly the VX and XP versions.You can do basically all of your game eventing , scripting , resource editing , etc , a using user-friendly gui , no need to touch programming code .
And you can do some fairly involved " eventing " logic , which is basically a very high level scripting language that you edit through user-friendly dialogue boxes.But you can also start digging into the lower details .
Actually , the core of the RPGMaker game engine is Ruby code , including an interpreter , which loads , interprets , etc the above resources .
And that engine is very easy to extend , using custom Ruby coding .
And in fact there is a huge number of custom scripts you can download from third parties to customize your games that way .
Basically you can customize just about anything that way , except for the user-friendly editor that most people use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One interesting example of "dumbing down programming" is the RPGMaker series, particularly the VX and XP versions.You can do basically all of your game eventing, scripting, resource editing, etc, a using user-friendly gui, no need to touch programming code.
And you can do some fairly involved "eventing" logic, which is basically a very high level scripting language that you edit through user-friendly dialogue boxes.But you can also start digging into the lower details.
Actually, the core of the RPGMaker game engine is Ruby code, including an interpreter, which loads, interprets, etc the above resources.
And that engine is very easy to extend, using custom Ruby coding.
And in fact there is a huge number of custom scripts you can download from third parties to customize your games that way.
Basically you can customize just about anything that way, except for the user-friendly editor that most people use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245100</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1259334540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...the correct word is 'fewer', not 'less'. Sorry. It's just a fetish and pet peeve with me.</i></p><p>man, unless there's a busty girl whipping you ever time you spell something wrong, you need a better fetish<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the correct word is 'fewer ' , not 'less' .
Sorry. It 's just a fetish and pet peeve with me.man , unless there 's a busty girl whipping you ever time you spell something wrong , you need a better fetish : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the correct word is 'fewer', not 'less'.
Sorry. It's just a fetish and pet peeve with me.man, unless there's a busty girl whipping you ever time you spell something wrong, you need a better fetish :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241480</id>
	<title>Slick</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1259245200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, this is slick.  I don't mean the language (it appears I need to install a plugin to view samples, which is a bit silly - I just want to see the language).  No, I mean the advertising.   Post it to slashdot with a title the casts it in doubt; link to the web site that requires you to install the plugin... poof! instant installed client base.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this is slick .
I do n't mean the language ( it appears I need to install a plugin to view samples , which is a bit silly - I just want to see the language ) .
No , I mean the advertising .
Post it to slashdot with a title the casts it in doubt ; link to the web site that requires you to install the plugin... poof ! instant installed client base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this is slick.
I don't mean the language (it appears I need to install a plugin to view samples, which is a bit silly - I just want to see the language).
No, I mean the advertising.
Post it to slashdot with a title the casts it in doubt; link to the web site that requires you to install the plugin... poof! instant installed client base.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244790</id>
	<title>Re:It actually doesn't look that good</title>
	<author>chthon</author>
	<datestamp>1259331240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>push @my\_array, $all\_items[1];</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>push @ my \ _array , $ all \ _items [ 1 ] ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>push @my\_array, $all\_items[1];</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240808</id>
	<title>How the arrive at 90\% when comparing to java</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259239620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a comparison to other languages, e.g. a single line of Rev code that they claim takes 69 lines of code in Java. (Fetching the last item on the second line of a csv file on yahoo.com somewhere).</p><p>I felt hurt and made this functionality in 5 lines of code in Java (13 if you count class, package, imports and function main declaration). And i've even spent one line extra to make the code more readable.</p><p>A handy method like SlurpURL is available in many libraries, which would have cut the first 3 lines into 1.</p><p>Given that java generally sucks on string manipulation, this is not bad.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; String text = "", s = "";<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader( new InputStreamReader( new URL( "http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L" ).openStream() ) );<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; while( (s=br.readLine()) != null ) text += (s + "\r\n");<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; String line2 = text.split( "\\n", 3 )[1];<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; System.out.println( line2.split( "," )[ line2.split( "," ).length-1]);<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a comparison to other languages , e.g .
a single line of Rev code that they claim takes 69 lines of code in Java .
( Fetching the last item on the second line of a csv file on yahoo.com somewhere ) .I felt hurt and made this functionality in 5 lines of code in Java ( 13 if you count class , package , imports and function main declaration ) .
And i 've even spent one line extra to make the code more readable.A handy method like SlurpURL is available in many libraries , which would have cut the first 3 lines into 1.Given that java generally sucks on string manipulation , this is not bad .
        public static void main ( String [ ] args ) throws Exception {                 String text = " " , s = " " ;                 BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader ( new InputStreamReader ( new URL ( " http : //ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv ? s = RBS.L " ) .openStream ( ) ) ) ;                 while ( ( s = br.readLine ( ) ) ! = null ) text + = ( s + " \ r \ n " ) ;                 String line2 = text.split ( " \ \ n " , 3 ) [ 1 ] ;                 System.out.println ( line2.split ( " , " ) [ line2.split ( " , " ) .length-1 ] ) ;         }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a comparison to other languages, e.g.
a single line of Rev code that they claim takes 69 lines of code in Java.
(Fetching the last item on the second line of a csv file on yahoo.com somewhere).I felt hurt and made this functionality in 5 lines of code in Java (13 if you count class, package, imports and function main declaration).
And i've even spent one line extra to make the code more readable.A handy method like SlurpURL is available in many libraries, which would have cut the first 3 lines into 1.Given that java generally sucks on string manipulation, this is not bad.
        public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
                String text = "", s = "";
                BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader( new InputStreamReader( new URL( "http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L" ).openStream() ) );
                while( (s=br.readLine()) != null ) text += (s + "\r\n");
                String line2 = text.split( "\\n", 3 )[1];
                System.out.println( line2.split( "," )[ line2.split( "," ).length-1]);
        }</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240704</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, yet exaggerated...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>curl http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L | awk 'BEGIN {FS =","} {if (NR == 2) print $NF}'</p><p>Not too shabby...</p><p>It is also worth noting that the Rev code ('get the last item of line 2 of URL "..."')is fairly ambiguous and have to make several guesses about the returned contents: is it a text file at all? If not, what does "the last item of line 2" mean? If it is a text file are they then refering to "the last item of line 2" of the text source or its rendered result? If it is the rendered result then how do they determine what "the last item" is? In this case, what if the rendered CSV-text had used ";" or  as the separator? Etc.</p><p>BTW, awfully verbose "natural" programming languages have been around for quite some time: COBOL and AppleScript comes to mind...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>curl http : //ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv ? s = RBS.L | awk 'BEGIN { FS = " , " } { if ( NR = = 2 ) print $ NF } 'Not too shabby...It is also worth noting that the Rev code ( 'get the last item of line 2 of URL " ... " ' ) is fairly ambiguous and have to make several guesses about the returned contents : is it a text file at all ?
If not , what does " the last item of line 2 " mean ?
If it is a text file are they then refering to " the last item of line 2 " of the text source or its rendered result ?
If it is the rendered result then how do they determine what " the last item " is ?
In this case , what if the rendered CSV-text had used " ; " or as the separator ?
Etc.BTW , awfully verbose " natural " programming languages have been around for quite some time : COBOL and AppleScript comes to mind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>curl http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L | awk 'BEGIN {FS =","} {if (NR == 2) print $NF}'Not too shabby...It is also worth noting that the Rev code ('get the last item of line 2 of URL "..."')is fairly ambiguous and have to make several guesses about the returned contents: is it a text file at all?
If not, what does "the last item of line 2" mean?
If it is a text file are they then refering to "the last item of line 2" of the text source or its rendered result?
If it is the rendered result then how do they determine what "the last item" is?
In this case, what if the rendered CSV-text had used ";" or  as the separator?
Etc.BTW, awfully verbose "natural" programming languages have been around for quite some time: COBOL and AppleScript comes to mind...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242530</id>
	<title>Re:Rev4 syntax</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1259256120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  I'm looking at an example right now and I don't see the difference between "set"ting a variable and "put"ting a value "into" a variable, or why some variables are "the" varname, and others are just varname.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I 'm looking at an example right now and I do n't see the difference between " set " ting a variable and " put " ting a value " into " a variable , or why some variables are " the " varname , and others are just varname .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I'm looking at an example right now and I don't see the difference between "set"ting a variable and "put"ting a value "into" a variable, or why some variables are "the" varname, and others are just varname.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240272</id>
	<title>Re:Rev4 syntax</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1259235660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not even sure the language is that relevant in most cases. Bad programmers will write bad code in any language<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and most people, especially your 'average Joes' are bad programmers. The bad code will almost always be there, some languages just make it easier to spot and fix. Some languages put up enough of a barrier that most non-professionals don't try to use it. This is not necessarily a bad thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not even sure the language is that relevant in most cases .
Bad programmers will write bad code in any language ... and most people , especially your 'average Joes ' are bad programmers .
The bad code will almost always be there , some languages just make it easier to spot and fix .
Some languages put up enough of a barrier that most non-professionals do n't try to use it .
This is not necessarily a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not even sure the language is that relevant in most cases.
Bad programmers will write bad code in any language ... and most people, especially your 'average Joes' are bad programmers.
The bad code will almost always be there, some languages just make it easier to spot and fix.
Some languages put up enough of a barrier that most non-professionals don't try to use it.
This is not necessarily a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240738</id>
	<title>Creativity</title>
	<author>SarahR</author>
	<datestamp>1259239200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Creativity is not limited to people who have the skills needed to bring their dreams to reality.
Low level programming languages stop many creative people from bringing their ideas to the computer.
High level languages like Revolution allow more people to create their own software, whether it is single-use utilities, applications for personal use only or commercial applications.
<br>
<br>
But this is always how technology develops: the pioneers have to do everything the hard way, then those of us who follow behind can use their tools to make things easier and easier. Of course the people who have invested in learning how to do things the hard way feel resentful of the newcomers who seem to be getting so much for free, but progress cannot be halted and when easier ways exist, why should we insist that people learn to do things in any way that is more difficult than the task requires. On that basis, programs should only be written in machine code, not this new-fangled assembler<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Creativity is not limited to people who have the skills needed to bring their dreams to reality .
Low level programming languages stop many creative people from bringing their ideas to the computer .
High level languages like Revolution allow more people to create their own software , whether it is single-use utilities , applications for personal use only or commercial applications .
But this is always how technology develops : the pioneers have to do everything the hard way , then those of us who follow behind can use their tools to make things easier and easier .
Of course the people who have invested in learning how to do things the hard way feel resentful of the newcomers who seem to be getting so much for free , but progress can not be halted and when easier ways exist , why should we insist that people learn to do things in any way that is more difficult than the task requires .
On that basis , programs should only be written in machine code , not this new-fangled assembler : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creativity is not limited to people who have the skills needed to bring their dreams to reality.
Low level programming languages stop many creative people from bringing their ideas to the computer.
High level languages like Revolution allow more people to create their own software, whether it is single-use utilities, applications for personal use only or commercial applications.
But this is always how technology develops: the pioneers have to do everything the hard way, then those of us who follow behind can use their tools to make things easier and easier.
Of course the people who have invested in learning how to do things the hard way feel resentful of the newcomers who seem to be getting so much for free, but progress cannot be halted and when easier ways exist, why should we insist that people learn to do things in any way that is more difficult than the task requires.
On that basis, programs should only be written in machine code, not this new-fangled assembler :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242052</id>
	<title>You are dumb down unless you program with...</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1259251020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on off switches. Everything else is just some higher lever  <a href="http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage" title="abstractionphysics.net">Abstraction</a> [abstractionphysics.net]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on off switches .
Everything else is just some higher lever Abstraction [ abstractionphysics.net ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on off switches.
Everything else is just some higher lever  Abstraction [abstractionphysics.net]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243116</id>
	<title>really only a few questions matter</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259264340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(1) Does it get the job done?</p><p>(2) What it completed on time?</p><p>(3) Was it within budget?</p><p>If the answer to these questions is "yes", then the tool did its job.  And, in my experience, a "dumbed down" language often works better than other languages.  C/C++ software often fails because of (2) and (3).</p><p>Sadly, Hypercard, Applescript, and Revolutions aren't "dumbed down", they are simply "dumb": they are just as complex as many other programming languages, they just use a syntax that gives the false appearance of being "easy".  It seems easy because people looking at it think "hey, this is just like natural language, I can figure out what this does".  That's a good hook to get people programming, but it gets them stuck with an inferior tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) Does it get the job done ?
( 2 ) What it completed on time ?
( 3 ) Was it within budget ? If the answer to these questions is " yes " , then the tool did its job .
And , in my experience , a " dumbed down " language often works better than other languages .
C/C + + software often fails because of ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) .Sadly , Hypercard , Applescript , and Revolutions are n't " dumbed down " , they are simply " dumb " : they are just as complex as many other programming languages , they just use a syntax that gives the false appearance of being " easy " .
It seems easy because people looking at it think " hey , this is just like natural language , I can figure out what this does " .
That 's a good hook to get people programming , but it gets them stuck with an inferior tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) Does it get the job done?
(2) What it completed on time?
(3) Was it within budget?If the answer to these questions is "yes", then the tool did its job.
And, in my experience, a "dumbed down" language often works better than other languages.
C/C++ software often fails because of (2) and (3).Sadly, Hypercard, Applescript, and Revolutions aren't "dumbed down", they are simply "dumb": they are just as complex as many other programming languages, they just use a syntax that gives the false appearance of being "easy".
It seems easy because people looking at it think "hey, this is just like natural language, I can figure out what this does".
That's a good hook to get people programming, but it gets them stuck with an inferior tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948</id>
	<title>90\% claim is fake</title>
	<author>bbn</author>
	<datestamp>1259249700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the astro-turf comments in TFA reads like this:</p><p>"Even though &lsquo;90-per cent less code than traditional languages&rsquo; reads like a big claim, it is valid one.</p><p>If you have a string you want to extract the first 3 characters of the second word on the 5ths line from and display it in an alert box, how many lines of code would you need to write in traditional languages? In rev this is a one-liner.</p><p><tt>answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of theString<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* where theString is a variable that holds the content */</tt>"</p><p>Of course any competent programmer can do the same in just as little code. For java it would be something like this:</p><p><tt>alert(theString.replaceFirst("(.*\n){4}\\s*\\S+\\s+","").substring(0,3));</tt></p><p>or</p><p><tt>alert(theString.split("\n")[4].trim().split(" +")[1].substring(0,3));</tt></p><p>This is roughly the same amount of code. Not 90\% less.</p><p>"Text processing" is apparently touted as one of the strong points of the language. Yet, I am sure old fashioned perl and regular expressions are likely more concise and powerful. As shown above, even java can compete.</p><p>How would this fare with real programming tasks? First order functions? List comprehension? Closures? A sound typesystem? You could go on forever.</p><p>These topics seem to be ignored. This is a VisualBasic clone, not an attempt at a language that you would create "real" programs in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the astro-turf comments in TFA reads like this : " Even though    90-per cent less code than traditional languages    reads like a big claim , it is valid one.If you have a string you want to extract the first 3 characters of the second word on the 5ths line from and display it in an alert box , how many lines of code would you need to write in traditional languages ?
In rev this is a one-liner.answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of theString / * where theString is a variable that holds the content * / " Of course any competent programmer can do the same in just as little code .
For java it would be something like this : alert ( theString.replaceFirst ( " ( .
* \ n ) { 4 } \ \ s * \ \ S + \ \ s + " , " " ) .substring ( 0,3 ) ) ; oralert ( theString.split ( " \ n " ) [ 4 ] .trim ( ) .split ( " + " ) [ 1 ] .substring ( 0,3 ) ) ; This is roughly the same amount of code .
Not 90 \ % less .
" Text processing " is apparently touted as one of the strong points of the language .
Yet , I am sure old fashioned perl and regular expressions are likely more concise and powerful .
As shown above , even java can compete.How would this fare with real programming tasks ?
First order functions ?
List comprehension ?
Closures ? A sound typesystem ?
You could go on forever.These topics seem to be ignored .
This is a VisualBasic clone , not an attempt at a language that you would create " real " programs in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the astro-turf comments in TFA reads like this:"Even though ‘90-per cent less code than traditional languages’ reads like a big claim, it is valid one.If you have a string you want to extract the first 3 characters of the second word on the 5ths line from and display it in an alert box, how many lines of code would you need to write in traditional languages?
In rev this is a one-liner.answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of theString /* where theString is a variable that holds the content */"Of course any competent programmer can do the same in just as little code.
For java it would be something like this:alert(theString.replaceFirst("(.
*\n){4}\\s*\\S+\\s+","").substring(0,3));oralert(theString.split("\n")[4].trim().split(" +")[1].substring(0,3));This is roughly the same amount of code.
Not 90\% less.
"Text processing" is apparently touted as one of the strong points of the language.
Yet, I am sure old fashioned perl and regular expressions are likely more concise and powerful.
As shown above, even java can compete.How would this fare with real programming tasks?
First order functions?
List comprehension?
Closures? A sound typesystem?
You could go on forever.These topics seem to be ignored.
This is a VisualBasic clone, not an attempt at a language that you would create "real" programs in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240190</id>
	<title>C++/ADA</title>
	<author>incubbus13</author>
	<datestamp>1259234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I went to the CS department at college, they informed me the C++ classes I took in junior college were no longer applicable to their CS degree, because they'd changed what was CS210-211 to ADA from C++. "Because we wanted students to spend less time debugging and more time writing code". Er...I'm no master coder, but in my experience, any project over 100 lines involves spending more time debugging than actually writing code. I thought that's just how it was.</p><p>I am all for languages that are easier to use. But coding should be hard. It is hard. And setting people up with the expectation that there's very little debugging involved, or that they can write killer apps in 45 minutes is crazy and counter-productive.</p><p>K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to the CS department at college , they informed me the C + + classes I took in junior college were no longer applicable to their CS degree , because they 'd changed what was CS210-211 to ADA from C + + .
" Because we wanted students to spend less time debugging and more time writing code " .
Er...I 'm no master coder , but in my experience , any project over 100 lines involves spending more time debugging than actually writing code .
I thought that 's just how it was.I am all for languages that are easier to use .
But coding should be hard .
It is hard .
And setting people up with the expectation that there 's very little debugging involved , or that they can write killer apps in 45 minutes is crazy and counter-productive.K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to the CS department at college, they informed me the C++ classes I took in junior college were no longer applicable to their CS degree, because they'd changed what was CS210-211 to ADA from C++.
"Because we wanted students to spend less time debugging and more time writing code".
Er...I'm no master coder, but in my experience, any project over 100 lines involves spending more time debugging than actually writing code.
I thought that's just how it was.I am all for languages that are easier to use.
But coding should be hard.
It is hard.
And setting people up with the expectation that there's very little debugging involved, or that they can write killer apps in 45 minutes is crazy and counter-productive.K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240216</id>
	<title>SQL Extension?</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1259235180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't SQL somewhat like that? I mean:</p><p>select color from hair where name = "Mike";</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't SQL somewhat like that ?
I mean : select color from hair where name = " Mike " ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't SQL somewhat like that?
I mean:select color from hair where name = "Mike";</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240622</id>
	<title>Funny</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1259238300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is, when I read the tutorial, they lost me on the "Getting Started" page.</p><p>As soon as they start with GUIs and toolbars with icons that you need to click, I don't understand what is happening anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is , when I read the tutorial , they lost me on the " Getting Started " page.As soon as they start with GUIs and toolbars with icons that you need to click , I do n't understand what is happening anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is, when I read the tutorial, they lost me on the "Getting Started" page.As soon as they start with GUIs and toolbars with icons that you need to click, I don't understand what is happening anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242418</id>
	<title>You cant dumb programming down.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1259255040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there will be always lower layers with which people will need to work with, when the needs arise. it has never been different.</p><p>on top of that, every software develops its own characteristics and workings after they grow big enough. regardless of what level programming language they are written on.</p><p>the most blunt, straight example for this are the php 'scripts' of a few years ago. over years, they have developed and grown to such a level that they have become expertise areas in themselves, and in places like elance, rentacoder, those expertises are specifically being asked for, instead of being labeled as 'php developer'. you may see 'phpbb expert', 'oscommerce developer', 'drupal wiz' requests a lot more than straight 'php developer' requests and so on.</p><p>it seems that this doesnt change with platform, and always holds true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there will be always lower layers with which people will need to work with , when the needs arise .
it has never been different.on top of that , every software develops its own characteristics and workings after they grow big enough .
regardless of what level programming language they are written on.the most blunt , straight example for this are the php 'scripts ' of a few years ago .
over years , they have developed and grown to such a level that they have become expertise areas in themselves , and in places like elance , rentacoder , those expertises are specifically being asked for , instead of being labeled as 'php developer' .
you may see 'phpbb expert ' , 'oscommerce developer ' , 'drupal wiz ' requests a lot more than straight 'php developer ' requests and so on.it seems that this doesnt change with platform , and always holds true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there will be always lower layers with which people will need to work with, when the needs arise.
it has never been different.on top of that, every software develops its own characteristics and workings after they grow big enough.
regardless of what level programming language they are written on.the most blunt, straight example for this are the php 'scripts' of a few years ago.
over years, they have developed and grown to such a level that they have become expertise areas in themselves, and in places like elance, rentacoder, those expertises are specifically being asked for, instead of being labeled as 'php developer'.
you may see 'phpbb expert', 'oscommerce developer', 'drupal wiz' requests a lot more than straight 'php developer' requests and so on.it seems that this doesnt change with platform, and always holds true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241786</id>
	<title>Re:C++/ADA</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259248080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, sure compiling and getting 20 errors is a pain, but it's there for a reason.  You made a mistake in the code and that is why there is an error to debug.   I find that as one gets better at coding there are less and less errors.  It's a combination of both learning how to program and just getting better at it and less prone to typographical or other dumb errors out of habit.  After you have written enough code, you stop forgetting to add a semicolon to the end of each line. (although as a side effect you may find yourself adding semicolons to your shopping lists or greeting cards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) )
<br> <br>
There are languages, especially that will run even with horrendous syntax errors and where the program will "try" to run even if there are some very bad errors in it.   Tried to put a value into a variable that was never declared?   It will just declare a new variable with that name.  Tried to put a char into an int variable?  It'll just recast the variable into an int.   Didn't close out a function?   It'll assume that you meant to close it when you started on another function.
<br> <br>
But this also presents just as big a problem as it might seem to solve.  For one thing, it does nothing to encourage proper code that will be readable by others and recognizable to other compilers.   Secondly, you can have some huge errors in the logic and still have the program run.
<br>
For example, lets say I do the following:
<br> <br>
int MyNumberHolder;<br>
MyNumberHolder = x*y;<br>
Print NumberHolder;<br>
<br> <br>
In this example, I'm assuming that I goofed on the last line and forgot my variable;e had the word "My" in front of it and if I did this in C++, the compiler would yell at me and tell me that I was trying to output a variable that does not exist.   However, in something like Javascript, it will just create a new variable, assuming I must have forgotten to.   It may also even go and initialize the variable for me and thus it would output zero.   Anyways, point being, if this were a long complex program and I did something like this in the middle, I'm going to spend a damn long time trying to figure out why I'm getting something out that looks nothing like it should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , sure compiling and getting 20 errors is a pain , but it 's there for a reason .
You made a mistake in the code and that is why there is an error to debug .
I find that as one gets better at coding there are less and less errors .
It 's a combination of both learning how to program and just getting better at it and less prone to typographical or other dumb errors out of habit .
After you have written enough code , you stop forgetting to add a semicolon to the end of each line .
( although as a side effect you may find yourself adding semicolons to your shopping lists or greeting cards ; - ) ) There are languages , especially that will run even with horrendous syntax errors and where the program will " try " to run even if there are some very bad errors in it .
Tried to put a value into a variable that was never declared ?
It will just declare a new variable with that name .
Tried to put a char into an int variable ?
It 'll just recast the variable into an int .
Did n't close out a function ?
It 'll assume that you meant to close it when you started on another function .
But this also presents just as big a problem as it might seem to solve .
For one thing , it does nothing to encourage proper code that will be readable by others and recognizable to other compilers .
Secondly , you can have some huge errors in the logic and still have the program run .
For example , lets say I do the following : int MyNumberHolder ; MyNumberHolder = x * y ; Print NumberHolder ; In this example , I 'm assuming that I goofed on the last line and forgot my variable ; e had the word " My " in front of it and if I did this in C + + , the compiler would yell at me and tell me that I was trying to output a variable that does not exist .
However , in something like Javascript , it will just create a new variable , assuming I must have forgotten to .
It may also even go and initialize the variable for me and thus it would output zero .
Anyways , point being , if this were a long complex program and I did something like this in the middle , I 'm going to spend a damn long time trying to figure out why I 'm getting something out that looks nothing like it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, sure compiling and getting 20 errors is a pain, but it's there for a reason.
You made a mistake in the code and that is why there is an error to debug.
I find that as one gets better at coding there are less and less errors.
It's a combination of both learning how to program and just getting better at it and less prone to typographical or other dumb errors out of habit.
After you have written enough code, you stop forgetting to add a semicolon to the end of each line.
(although as a side effect you may find yourself adding semicolons to your shopping lists or greeting cards ;-) )
 
There are languages, especially that will run even with horrendous syntax errors and where the program will "try" to run even if there are some very bad errors in it.
Tried to put a value into a variable that was never declared?
It will just declare a new variable with that name.
Tried to put a char into an int variable?
It'll just recast the variable into an int.
Didn't close out a function?
It'll assume that you meant to close it when you started on another function.
But this also presents just as big a problem as it might seem to solve.
For one thing, it does nothing to encourage proper code that will be readable by others and recognizable to other compilers.
Secondly, you can have some huge errors in the logic and still have the program run.
For example, lets say I do the following:
 
int MyNumberHolder;
MyNumberHolder = x*y;
Print NumberHolder;
 
In this example, I'm assuming that I goofed on the last line and forgot my variable;e had the word "My" in front of it and if I did this in C++, the compiler would yell at me and tell me that I was trying to output a variable that does not exist.
However, in something like Javascript, it will just create a new variable, assuming I must have forgotten to.
It may also even go and initialize the variable for me and thus it would output zero.
Anyways, point being, if this were a long complex program and I did something like this in the middle, I'm going to spend a damn long time trying to figure out why I'm getting something out that looks nothing like it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240646</id>
	<title>Revolution 4.0?</title>
	<author>omuls are tasty</author>
	<datestamp>1259238480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one seeing the irony of calling something "Revolution" and then adding version number 4.0 to it?</p><p>I think that about sums it up nicely...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one seeing the irony of calling something " Revolution " and then adding version number 4.0 to it ? I think that about sums it up nicely.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one seeing the irony of calling something "Revolution" and then adding version number 4.0 to it?I think that about sums it up nicely...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243950</id>
	<title>Too easy!?  Too powerful!?  Too elegant!?</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1259318160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>YOU decide!</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU decide !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU decide!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30249680</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1259320260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a good, experienced, coder can do more work ( that is better quality) than half a dozen cheap, less skilled coders. This is never factored into management ideas of how you can outsource your coding and get the same quality for a tenth the price.</p></div></blockquote><p>One of the problems is understanding the domain, or "local business culture". If you split programmers up into small teams or individuals that are embedded in and get to know a given department, then they will have a better feel for solving that department's needs. They may not be the smartest from a technical perspective, but they know what users need because they've absorbed the business.</p><p>There's always an on-going battle between centralization and decentralization at every org and shop. There's no clear winner yet. The best techies often do the "wrong thing better", which obviously isn't the ideal. There is value to understanding what the users need, but whether that overrides technical ability...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a good , experienced , coder can do more work ( that is better quality ) than half a dozen cheap , less skilled coders .
This is never factored into management ideas of how you can outsource your coding and get the same quality for a tenth the price.One of the problems is understanding the domain , or " local business culture " .
If you split programmers up into small teams or individuals that are embedded in and get to know a given department , then they will have a better feel for solving that department 's needs .
They may not be the smartest from a technical perspective , but they know what users need because they 've absorbed the business.There 's always an on-going battle between centralization and decentralization at every org and shop .
There 's no clear winner yet .
The best techies often do the " wrong thing better " , which obviously is n't the ideal .
There is value to understanding what the users need , but whether that overrides technical ability.. .        </tokentext>
<sentencetext>a good, experienced, coder can do more work ( that is better quality) than half a dozen cheap, less skilled coders.
This is never factored into management ideas of how you can outsource your coding and get the same quality for a tenth the price.One of the problems is understanding the domain, or "local business culture".
If you split programmers up into small teams or individuals that are embedded in and get to know a given department, then they will have a better feel for solving that department's needs.
They may not be the smartest from a technical perspective, but they know what users need because they've absorbed the business.There's always an on-going battle between centralization and decentralization at every org and shop.
There's no clear winner yet.
The best techies often do the "wrong thing better", which obviously isn't the ideal.
There is value to understanding what the users need, but whether that overrides technical ability...
       
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244170</id>
	<title>lol dumb</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1259321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so... are we supposed to overlook that percent is spelled "per cent"  in an article about dumbing down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so... are we supposed to overlook that percent is spelled " per cent " in an article about dumbing down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so... are we supposed to overlook that percent is spelled "per cent"  in an article about dumbing down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243642</id>
	<title>leave this discussion to ZDNet</title>
	<author>dgallard</author>
	<datestamp>1259314500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is appropriate for this topic to be a source<br>of discussion at ZDNet.  Could we who read slashdot<br>please be spared this waste of time.</p><p>Thank you.</p><p>Dennis Allard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is appropriate for this topic to be a sourceof discussion at ZDNet .
Could we who read slashdotplease be spared this waste of time.Thank you.Dennis Allard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is appropriate for this topic to be a sourceof discussion at ZDNet.
Could we who read slashdotplease be spared this waste of time.Thank you.Dennis Allard</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014</id>
	<title>AppleScript?</title>
	<author>BoxedFlame</author>
	<datestamp>1259233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me or does their language look just like AppleScript?</p><p>And how can you claim that:<br>set foo to bar on baz<br>is "less code" than<br>bar.foo = baz<br>? 90\% less? Yea right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or does their language look just like AppleScript ? And how can you claim that : set foo to bar on bazis " less code " thanbar.foo = baz ?
90 \ % less ?
Yea right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or does their language look just like AppleScript?And how can you claim that:set foo to bar on bazis "less code" thanbar.foo = baz?
90\% less?
Yea right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240162</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1259234700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, that makes sense to managers only. Those of us at the coal face know that you can hire cheaper, less skilled programmers and let them loose with easy-to-use languages (eg Visual Basic) and you will get a monstrous mess that is impossible to maintain.</p><p>If you make them use a reasonably difficult language, most of them will not bother becoming programmers. This a good thing.</p><p>One other point that is never noted in these ideas to simplify programming and make programmers generic 'coding resources' is that  a good, experienced, coder can do more work ( that is better quality) than half a dozen cheap, less skilled coders. This is never factored into management ideas of how you can outsource your coding and get the same quality for a tenth the price. This could be why a lot of outsourced contracts don't tend to last unless they're lost in a sea of big-corporate bureaucracy.</p><p>Oh, and don;t forget that the more you chop and change programming languages, the less programmers you have who are experienced using them - you will get C programmers who have 40 years experience, you tend to get programmers who've "had a tinker" with languages like runrev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , that makes sense to managers only .
Those of us at the coal face know that you can hire cheaper , less skilled programmers and let them loose with easy-to-use languages ( eg Visual Basic ) and you will get a monstrous mess that is impossible to maintain.If you make them use a reasonably difficult language , most of them will not bother becoming programmers .
This a good thing.One other point that is never noted in these ideas to simplify programming and make programmers generic 'coding resources ' is that a good , experienced , coder can do more work ( that is better quality ) than half a dozen cheap , less skilled coders .
This is never factored into management ideas of how you can outsource your coding and get the same quality for a tenth the price .
This could be why a lot of outsourced contracts do n't tend to last unless they 're lost in a sea of big-corporate bureaucracy.Oh , and don ; t forget that the more you chop and change programming languages , the less programmers you have who are experienced using them - you will get C programmers who have 40 years experience , you tend to get programmers who 've " had a tinker " with languages like runrev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, that makes sense to managers only.
Those of us at the coal face know that you can hire cheaper, less skilled programmers and let them loose with easy-to-use languages (eg Visual Basic) and you will get a monstrous mess that is impossible to maintain.If you make them use a reasonably difficult language, most of them will not bother becoming programmers.
This a good thing.One other point that is never noted in these ideas to simplify programming and make programmers generic 'coding resources' is that  a good, experienced, coder can do more work ( that is better quality) than half a dozen cheap, less skilled coders.
This is never factored into management ideas of how you can outsource your coding and get the same quality for a tenth the price.
This could be why a lot of outsourced contracts don't tend to last unless they're lost in a sea of big-corporate bureaucracy.Oh, and don;t forget that the more you chop and change programming languages, the less programmers you have who are experienced using them - you will get C programmers who have 40 years experience, you tend to get programmers who've "had a tinker" with languages like runrev.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240024</id>
	<title>Too many keywords</title>
	<author>Frans Faase</author>
	<datestamp>1259233500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a language with so many keywords, there are almost no valid variable names left to be used. The list is way too long. Even scrolling through the list takes some time. To me it seems more than half of the keywords are used in less than 1\% of the functions. Finding the right keyword for calling some function is going to take a long time. It seems to me that this is the wrong way to solve the programming problem. I strongly doubt whether the claims that this environment save you money are based on solid facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a language with so many keywords , there are almost no valid variable names left to be used .
The list is way too long .
Even scrolling through the list takes some time .
To me it seems more than half of the keywords are used in less than 1 \ % of the functions .
Finding the right keyword for calling some function is going to take a long time .
It seems to me that this is the wrong way to solve the programming problem .
I strongly doubt whether the claims that this environment save you money are based on solid facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a language with so many keywords, there are almost no valid variable names left to be used.
The list is way too long.
Even scrolling through the list takes some time.
To me it seems more than half of the keywords are used in less than 1\% of the functions.
Finding the right keyword for calling some function is going to take a long time.
It seems to me that this is the wrong way to solve the programming problem.
I strongly doubt whether the claims that this environment save you money are based on solid facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240106</id>
	<title>Re:It actually doesn't look that good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259234100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went through a couple pages of the tutorial, and I agree, it doesn't really make anything EASIER. As a programmer it sure isn't easier to Read then something Like Visual basic, or even Java. I find myself trying to figure out some of their nuances more then I am trying to follow their code, for example, they use Repeat instead of While. Were while statements one of the things that confused most people?</p><p>And Essentially, yes,<br>"put item 1 of allItems into myArray"</p><p>IS easier to read, however if you don't know how arrays work it won't do you any good. And essentially if you DO know how Arrays work, then</p><p>myArray.Add(allItems[1])</p><p>Shouldn't confuse you at all. Essentially its all syntax, and once you learned one 3rd generation language you've basically learned them all, because an If is and If and an Else is an Else. No matter how many brackets you need, it'll still do the same thing.</p><p>Now, if you find the Syntax in Java scary - you should take a look at some Lisp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went through a couple pages of the tutorial , and I agree , it does n't really make anything EASIER .
As a programmer it sure is n't easier to Read then something Like Visual basic , or even Java .
I find myself trying to figure out some of their nuances more then I am trying to follow their code , for example , they use Repeat instead of While .
Were while statements one of the things that confused most people ? And Essentially , yes , " put item 1 of allItems into myArray " IS easier to read , however if you do n't know how arrays work it wo n't do you any good .
And essentially if you DO know how Arrays work , thenmyArray.Add ( allItems [ 1 ] ) Should n't confuse you at all .
Essentially its all syntax , and once you learned one 3rd generation language you 've basically learned them all , because an If is and If and an Else is an Else .
No matter how many brackets you need , it 'll still do the same thing.Now , if you find the Syntax in Java scary - you should take a look at some Lisp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went through a couple pages of the tutorial, and I agree, it doesn't really make anything EASIER.
As a programmer it sure isn't easier to Read then something Like Visual basic, or even Java.
I find myself trying to figure out some of their nuances more then I am trying to follow their code, for example, they use Repeat instead of While.
Were while statements one of the things that confused most people?And Essentially, yes,"put item 1 of allItems into myArray"IS easier to read, however if you don't know how arrays work it won't do you any good.
And essentially if you DO know how Arrays work, thenmyArray.Add(allItems[1])Shouldn't confuse you at all.
Essentially its all syntax, and once you learned one 3rd generation language you've basically learned them all, because an If is and If and an Else is an Else.
No matter how many brackets you need, it'll still do the same thing.Now, if you find the Syntax in Java scary - you should take a look at some Lisp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30248254</id>
	<title>Re:A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>Haeleth</author>
	<datestamp>1259312460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For the latter, imagine if, instead of "rm -rf *", you'd have to type "delete all files in this folder, and I'm sure I want to do this". It's more verbose and much less efficient, but it's both more human-readable and likely much more dummy-proof. If someone can more easily understand what they're doing, they're more likely to stop and realise it may not be what they actually intended to do.</p></div></blockquote><p>Solving the wrong problem there.  Dummies will still just copy-and-paste the command from some forum thread, without reading it, and then be surprised when it does what it says.  And non-dummies will turn your "helpful" feature off because it just gets in their way.</p><p>The correct solution to the problem of accidental file deletion is to provide an undelete function.  All GUIs do this.  The fact that most command lines do not suggests that command-line users do not, in practice, find that such a problem exists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the latter , imagine if , instead of " rm -rf * " , you 'd have to type " delete all files in this folder , and I 'm sure I want to do this " .
It 's more verbose and much less efficient , but it 's both more human-readable and likely much more dummy-proof .
If someone can more easily understand what they 're doing , they 're more likely to stop and realise it may not be what they actually intended to do.Solving the wrong problem there .
Dummies will still just copy-and-paste the command from some forum thread , without reading it , and then be surprised when it does what it says .
And non-dummies will turn your " helpful " feature off because it just gets in their way.The correct solution to the problem of accidental file deletion is to provide an undelete function .
All GUIs do this .
The fact that most command lines do not suggests that command-line users do not , in practice , find that such a problem exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the latter, imagine if, instead of "rm -rf *", you'd have to type "delete all files in this folder, and I'm sure I want to do this".
It's more verbose and much less efficient, but it's both more human-readable and likely much more dummy-proof.
If someone can more easily understand what they're doing, they're more likely to stop and realise it may not be what they actually intended to do.Solving the wrong problem there.
Dummies will still just copy-and-paste the command from some forum thread, without reading it, and then be surprised when it does what it says.
And non-dummies will turn your "helpful" feature off because it just gets in their way.The correct solution to the problem of accidental file deletion is to provide an undelete function.
All GUIs do this.
The fact that most command lines do not suggests that command-line users do not, in practice, find that such a problem exists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240650</id>
	<title>Re:Rev4 syntax</title>
	<author>andrew554</author>
	<datestamp>1259238480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly yes, it is easy to program with, at least going by my experience with HyperTalk (HyperCard scripting language) 20 years ago.</p><p>I&rsquo;m a decent programmer, and was then too, but actually the English-like scripting language was a joy to use&mdash;at least for the things I used HyperCard for.</p><p>I&rsquo;m quite willing to believe that this thing can make programming easy for &lsquo;non-programmers&rsquo; for certain kinds of problems. It&rsquo;s not going to be the next Java, but then we already have the <a href="http://scala-lang.org/" title="scala-lang.org" rel="nofollow">next Java</a> [scala-lang.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly yes , it is easy to program with , at least going by my experience with HyperTalk ( HyperCard scripting language ) 20 years ago.I    m a decent programmer , and was then too , but actually the English-like scripting language was a joy to use    at least for the things I used HyperCard for.I    m quite willing to believe that this thing can make programming easy for    non-programmers    for certain kinds of problems .
It    s not going to be the next Java , but then we already have the next Java [ scala-lang.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly yes, it is easy to program with, at least going by my experience with HyperTalk (HyperCard scripting language) 20 years ago.I’m a decent programmer, and was then too, but actually the English-like scripting language was a joy to use—at least for the things I used HyperCard for.I’m quite willing to believe that this thing can make programming easy for ‘non-programmers’ for certain kinds of problems.
It’s not going to be the next Java, but then we already have the next Java [scala-lang.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241790</id>
	<title>Re:A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1259248080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can inheret from myString and overload myString.pop().  How, pray tell, do you plan on doing that with your solution?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can inheret from myString and overload myString.pop ( ) .
How , pray tell , do you plan on doing that with your solution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can inheret from myString and overload myString.pop().
How, pray tell, do you plan on doing that with your solution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240278</id>
	<title>Don't be deceived</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259235720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/* Shortest useful program ever. */<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* prerequisite:  Someone else already did the heavy lifting. */<br>#include <br>int main(int c, char **v)<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; initializestuff();<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; for(;;) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; doforever();<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}</p><p>There, I wrote an entire operating system in less than 10 lines!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ * Shortest useful program ever .
* / / * prerequisite : Someone else already did the heavy lifting .
* / # include int main ( int c , char * * v ) {     initializestuff ( ) ;     for ( ; ; ) {         doforever ( ) ;     } } There , I wrote an entire operating system in less than 10 lines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/* Shortest useful program ever.
*/ /* prerequisite:  Someone else already did the heavy lifting.
*/#include int main(int c, char **v){
    initializestuff();
    for(;;) {
        doforever();
    }}There, I wrote an entire operating system in less than 10 lines!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240102</id>
	<title>The past</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259234100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The programming world seems to run in about a 30 year cycle.

Java = Pascal reinvented (pointers are too hard)
Java bytecodes = UCSD Pascal p-system reinvented
picoJava hardware = Intel i432 reinvented
Revolution 4.0  = COBOL reinvented - similar claims

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The programming world seems to run in about a 30 year cycle .
Java = Pascal reinvented ( pointers are too hard ) Java bytecodes = UCSD Pascal p-system reinvented picoJava hardware = Intel i432 reinvented Revolution 4.0 = COBOL reinvented - similar claims Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The programming world seems to run in about a 30 year cycle.
Java = Pascal reinvented (pointers are too hard)
Java bytecodes = UCSD Pascal p-system reinvented
picoJava hardware = Intel i432 reinvented
Revolution 4.0  = COBOL reinvented - similar claims

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244388</id>
	<title>reminds one of 4gl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259324580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And 4gl is great for "business" logic. These argumants about dum</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And 4gl is great for " business " logic .
These argumants about dum</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And 4gl is great for "business" logic.
These argumants about dum</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240342</id>
	<title>Why not dumb it down?</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1259236260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a reason that it should not be dumbed down? Should it be kept difficult for some reason? If a person can adequately express their problem and how it should be solved to a computer, and the computer can take that expression and solve the programmer's problem, I don't see what the issue is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a reason that it should not be dumbed down ?
Should it be kept difficult for some reason ?
If a person can adequately express their problem and how it should be solved to a computer , and the computer can take that expression and solve the programmer 's problem , I do n't see what the issue is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a reason that it should not be dumbed down?
Should it be kept difficult for some reason?
If a person can adequately express their problem and how it should be solved to a computer, and the computer can take that expression and solve the programmer's problem, I don't see what the issue is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240250</id>
	<title>Re:A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>broken\_chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1259235480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not entirely. In some cases they can be, but not in others.</p><p>They <em>might</em> be if something is opaque enough that anyone who is not a 'dummy' will simply fail to produce something working. Like trying to create an assembly program with no knowledge. However, they <em>might not</em> be if they're more in-between incomprehensibility and English. Like someone enters the wrong command into a shell.</p><p>For the latter, imagine if, instead of "rm -rf *", you'd have to type "delete all files in this folder, and I'm sure I want to do this". It's more verbose and much less efficient, but it's both more human-readable and likely much more dummy-proof. If someone can more easily understand what they're doing, they're more likely to stop and realise it may not be what they actually intended to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not entirely .
In some cases they can be , but not in others.They might be if something is opaque enough that anyone who is not a 'dummy ' will simply fail to produce something working .
Like trying to create an assembly program with no knowledge .
However , they might not be if they 're more in-between incomprehensibility and English .
Like someone enters the wrong command into a shell.For the latter , imagine if , instead of " rm -rf * " , you 'd have to type " delete all files in this folder , and I 'm sure I want to do this " .
It 's more verbose and much less efficient , but it 's both more human-readable and likely much more dummy-proof .
If someone can more easily understand what they 're doing , they 're more likely to stop and realise it may not be what they actually intended to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not entirely.
In some cases they can be, but not in others.They might be if something is opaque enough that anyone who is not a 'dummy' will simply fail to produce something working.
Like trying to create an assembly program with no knowledge.
However, they might not be if they're more in-between incomprehensibility and English.
Like someone enters the wrong command into a shell.For the latter, imagine if, instead of "rm -rf *", you'd have to type "delete all files in this folder, and I'm sure I want to do this".
It's more verbose and much less efficient, but it's both more human-readable and likely much more dummy-proof.
If someone can more easily understand what they're doing, they're more likely to stop and realise it may not be what they actually intended to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241358</id>
	<title>Re:AppleScript?</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1259244060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> Is it just me or does their language look just like AppleScript?</i> <br> <br>
Applescript and the Rev's incarnation of Hypertalk have the same roots - Hypercard. So They probably do look and work similarly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or does their language look just like AppleScript ?
Applescript and the Rev 's incarnation of Hypertalk have the same roots - Hypercard .
So They probably do look and work similarly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is it just me or does their language look just like AppleScript?
Applescript and the Rev's incarnation of Hypertalk have the same roots - Hypercard.
So They probably do look and work similarly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30246130</id>
	<title>Re:Lowering the bar</title>
	<author>awol</author>
	<datestamp>1259341620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let dumber people program and you end up with dumber programs.  Way back in year 2000 I found that most of the Y2K bugs were actually from more recently written programs in dumbed down languages.</p></div><p>No, I think dumbing down the langauges is the right thing to do. Made my living writing software for 20 years, never wrote a piece of assembler once. Some of the stuff we wrote was actually hard. Still never wrote a single piece of assembler. For this I am eternally thankful. Clearly almost every language we have is a better (and dumbed down) compared to assembler. Don't misunderstand, I fully accept that assembler has its place, but that too is a fairly generic statement that I am happy to endorse "I accpet that  has it's place".</p><p>When looking at something new, I now try and start with some of the more dumbed down languages, Python, Tcl, Perl etc. I even had to learn a bit of Ruby the other day because I wanted to enhance something that someone had written in Ruby. Their choice. Whatever reason. Now I have a tool that does exactly what I want and it took 2 days. Sure, not a complex task but writing in C or Java would have been a nightmare.</p><p>I am waiting for the "Fisher Price" language. A bunch of oversized blocks that you just "snap" together to make your applications. Sure you only use 2\% of their functionality but the big blocks are robust and "apparently" simple to the "programmer" and all one needs to do is specify the "what" rather than the "how". And isn't that the real ideal. I am sure we've all thought it even if we were too ashamed to say it... "Aaargh, bloody machine do what I meant not what I coded".  So the real developments in this area are to find "environments" that allow users to specify the "what's" and leave the hows to the "environment". The language can be as dumb as possible.</p><p>To paraphrase; "Everything should be  made as dumb as possible but no dumber"</p><p>We have quite a lot of dumbing down to be done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let dumber people program and you end up with dumber programs .
Way back in year 2000 I found that most of the Y2K bugs were actually from more recently written programs in dumbed down languages.No , I think dumbing down the langauges is the right thing to do .
Made my living writing software for 20 years , never wrote a piece of assembler once .
Some of the stuff we wrote was actually hard .
Still never wrote a single piece of assembler .
For this I am eternally thankful .
Clearly almost every language we have is a better ( and dumbed down ) compared to assembler .
Do n't misunderstand , I fully accept that assembler has its place , but that too is a fairly generic statement that I am happy to endorse " I accpet that has it 's place " .When looking at something new , I now try and start with some of the more dumbed down languages , Python , Tcl , Perl etc .
I even had to learn a bit of Ruby the other day because I wanted to enhance something that someone had written in Ruby .
Their choice .
Whatever reason .
Now I have a tool that does exactly what I want and it took 2 days .
Sure , not a complex task but writing in C or Java would have been a nightmare.I am waiting for the " Fisher Price " language .
A bunch of oversized blocks that you just " snap " together to make your applications .
Sure you only use 2 \ % of their functionality but the big blocks are robust and " apparently " simple to the " programmer " and all one needs to do is specify the " what " rather than the " how " .
And is n't that the real ideal .
I am sure we 've all thought it even if we were too ashamed to say it... " Aaargh , bloody machine do what I meant not what I coded " .
So the real developments in this area are to find " environments " that allow users to specify the " what 's " and leave the hows to the " environment " .
The language can be as dumb as possible.To paraphrase ; " Everything should be made as dumb as possible but no dumber " We have quite a lot of dumbing down to be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let dumber people program and you end up with dumber programs.
Way back in year 2000 I found that most of the Y2K bugs were actually from more recently written programs in dumbed down languages.No, I think dumbing down the langauges is the right thing to do.
Made my living writing software for 20 years, never wrote a piece of assembler once.
Some of the stuff we wrote was actually hard.
Still never wrote a single piece of assembler.
For this I am eternally thankful.
Clearly almost every language we have is a better (and dumbed down) compared to assembler.
Don't misunderstand, I fully accept that assembler has its place, but that too is a fairly generic statement that I am happy to endorse "I accpet that  has it's place".When looking at something new, I now try and start with some of the more dumbed down languages, Python, Tcl, Perl etc.
I even had to learn a bit of Ruby the other day because I wanted to enhance something that someone had written in Ruby.
Their choice.
Whatever reason.
Now I have a tool that does exactly what I want and it took 2 days.
Sure, not a complex task but writing in C or Java would have been a nightmare.I am waiting for the "Fisher Price" language.
A bunch of oversized blocks that you just "snap" together to make your applications.
Sure you only use 2\% of their functionality but the big blocks are robust and "apparently" simple to the "programmer" and all one needs to do is specify the "what" rather than the "how".
And isn't that the real ideal.
I am sure we've all thought it even if we were too ashamed to say it... "Aaargh, bloody machine do what I meant not what I coded".
So the real developments in this area are to find "environments" that allow users to specify the "what's" and leave the hows to the "environment".
The language can be as dumb as possible.To paraphrase; "Everything should be  made as dumb as possible but no dumber"We have quite a lot of dumbing down to be done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240288</id>
	<title>Re:Rev4 syntax</title>
	<author>azav</author>
	<datestamp>1259235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To your main point, yes.  Yes it is.</p><p>Easier, that is.</p><p>Why do you feel the need for parenthesis? I find the curly brackets and parens more cumbersome then they are worth in many cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To your main point , yes .
Yes it is.Easier , that is.Why do you feel the need for parenthesis ?
I find the curly brackets and parens more cumbersome then they are worth in many cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To your main point, yes.
Yes it is.Easier, that is.Why do you feel the need for parenthesis?
I find the curly brackets and parens more cumbersome then they are worth in many cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240862</id>
	<title>Re:AppleScript?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259239980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a string you want to extract the first 3 characters from the second word on the 5th line and display it in an alert box, how many lines of code do you need to write?</p><p>in rev this is</p><p>answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of tString</p><p>is that less code than in your preferred language?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a string you want to extract the first 3 characters from the second word on the 5th line and display it in an alert box , how many lines of code do you need to write ? in rev this isanswer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of tStringis that less code than in your preferred language ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a string you want to extract the first 3 characters from the second word on the 5th line and display it in an alert box, how many lines of code do you need to write?in rev this isanswer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of tStringis that less code than in your preferred language?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243456</id>
	<title>Just learn other languages better before comparing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259355300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just had a look at their php/revtalk comparison. They claim 50\% less code. Well, I'm not PHP expert (I don't even like PHP) but this really shows incompetence on their side.
For example in PHP they do 2 loops, one for removing stopwords and the other for counting remaining words. In RevTalk they do just one loop doing both things, which of course you can do also in PHP.
And they use 5 php lines just to tokenize the input string (tolower, trim, preg\_replace...) when you could just condense it all (and doing it better) inside the "for" line (as they ~almost~ do in revtalk).
And they stupidly keep using tolower even inside the loops, where all strings have already been lowered.
And they use 3 lines to print the sample output (1 line to set a variable to the sample argument, 1 line to call the function, 1 line to print output) but you clearly could do it in just one line as they do in revtalk.
So the real message here is that revtalk is for clueless people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a look at their php/revtalk comparison .
They claim 50 \ % less code .
Well , I 'm not PHP expert ( I do n't even like PHP ) but this really shows incompetence on their side .
For example in PHP they do 2 loops , one for removing stopwords and the other for counting remaining words .
In RevTalk they do just one loop doing both things , which of course you can do also in PHP .
And they use 5 php lines just to tokenize the input string ( tolower , trim , preg \ _replace... ) when you could just condense it all ( and doing it better ) inside the " for " line ( as they ~ almost ~ do in revtalk ) .
And they stupidly keep using tolower even inside the loops , where all strings have already been lowered .
And they use 3 lines to print the sample output ( 1 line to set a variable to the sample argument , 1 line to call the function , 1 line to print output ) but you clearly could do it in just one line as they do in revtalk .
So the real message here is that revtalk is for clueless people : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a look at their php/revtalk comparison.
They claim 50\% less code.
Well, I'm not PHP expert (I don't even like PHP) but this really shows incompetence on their side.
For example in PHP they do 2 loops, one for removing stopwords and the other for counting remaining words.
In RevTalk they do just one loop doing both things, which of course you can do also in PHP.
And they use 5 php lines just to tokenize the input string (tolower, trim, preg\_replace...) when you could just condense it all (and doing it better) inside the "for" line (as they ~almost~ do in revtalk).
And they stupidly keep using tolower even inside the loops, where all strings have already been lowered.
And they use 3 lines to print the sample output (1 line to set a variable to the sample argument, 1 line to call the function, 1 line to print output) but you clearly could do it in just one line as they do in revtalk.
So the real message here is that revtalk is for clueless people :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240908</id>
	<title>Re:It actually doesn't look that good</title>
	<author>Acapulco</author>
	<datestamp>1259240400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Now, if you find the Syntax in Java scary - you should take a look at some Lisp.</i> <br> <br>

Or perl...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if you find the Syntax in Java scary - you should take a look at some Lisp .
Or perl... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if you find the Syntax in Java scary - you should take a look at some Lisp.
Or perl...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240784</id>
	<title>Age old quest: COBOL and SQL</title>
	<author>kbahey</author>
	<datestamp>1259239380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an age old quest. There has been attempts at making programming English like for many decades<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>First there was COBOL: COmmon Business Oriented Language. Its syntax is very similar to English. It was sold as a way to make Managers able to write programs without the need of having a developer involved.</p><p>ADD 1 TO IDX.<br>SUBTRACT 1 FROM IDX.<br>MOVE X TO Y.</p><p>What happened instead is that a generation of developers learned COBOL and specialized in it, and managers were still managing.</p><p>Next, there was SQL: Structured Query Language. Despite the mathematical model behind relational databases, SQL was again sold as a way for managers to execute queries and get reports for themselves. That may have worked until the manager who ran a query on seven tables without any joins. That made everyone go again to "leave it to the programmers" mode again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an age old quest .
There has been attempts at making programming English like for many decades ...First there was COBOL : COmmon Business Oriented Language .
Its syntax is very similar to English .
It was sold as a way to make Managers able to write programs without the need of having a developer involved.ADD 1 TO IDX.SUBTRACT 1 FROM IDX.MOVE X TO Y.What happened instead is that a generation of developers learned COBOL and specialized in it , and managers were still managing.Next , there was SQL : Structured Query Language .
Despite the mathematical model behind relational databases , SQL was again sold as a way for managers to execute queries and get reports for themselves .
That may have worked until the manager who ran a query on seven tables without any joins .
That made everyone go again to " leave it to the programmers " mode again .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an age old quest.
There has been attempts at making programming English like for many decades ...First there was COBOL: COmmon Business Oriented Language.
Its syntax is very similar to English.
It was sold as a way to make Managers able to write programs without the need of having a developer involved.ADD 1 TO IDX.SUBTRACT 1 FROM IDX.MOVE X TO Y.What happened instead is that a generation of developers learned COBOL and specialized in it, and managers were still managing.Next, there was SQL: Structured Query Language.
Despite the mathematical model behind relational databases, SQL was again sold as a way for managers to execute queries and get reports for themselves.
That may have worked until the manager who ran a query on seven tables without any joins.
That made everyone go again to "leave it to the programmers" mode again ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240456</id>
	<title>Re:xkcd relevance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259237160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/568/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas.</a> [xkcd.com]</p> </div><p> <b>sudo</b> make me a timekeeping application<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas .
[ xkcd.com ] sudo make me a timekeeping application ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas.
[xkcd.com]  sudo make me a timekeeping application ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30252606</id>
	<title>Buggy (as Hell)</title>
	<author>TeachingMachines</author>
	<datestamp>1259345520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to use this language/RAD environment.  Kept getting hit with show stopping bugs.  There's a million of them.  For starters, the plugin for web content apparently runs continuously as a process in the background.  Don't know if they fixed that yet.  Of if they will.  Uninstallers and updaters didn't work (uninstaller corrupted my Windows registry for version 3.5).  The memory management is awful, and leaks abound when using externals (for example, databases and browsers).  The list goes on.  And on.  Right now this is a very pretty package, but it's not ready for the big leagues.  The underlying code needs to be vetted.  I'd recommend sticking with open source alternatives such as wxpython or Tcl/Tk if you want to avoid these issues.  There is nothing more frustrating than having a show stopping bug and having to deal with a commercial vendor that won't give you the time day or treats you like a child.  I think "opacity" is the word that describes them.</p><p>A big problem here is that there is a niche of programmers that wants/needs to create commercial applications, especially for entertainment and education needs, but the RAD tools have really gone to hell from the commercial vendors.  I started out using Authorware in 1998, which was quite lovingly "discontinued," but was very stable.  Then came Macromedia Director, which was god damned rock solid through MX 2004 (although essentially abandoned for Flash by Macromedia; they had like one engineer working on it at the time of the sale to Adobe).  Adobe took Director and sent the code base to Bangalore, India, to a bunch of engineers who've made a complete mess out of things from what I can tell.  I don't think its a coincidence that the CEO of Adobe is a graduate of the universities of India himself.  Anyway, they're stuck at version 11.5, which is an unholy pile of junk (and it will cost you a cool grand, btw).  Director, the program that built Macromedia, is essentially dead and along with it just about the only commercial programming alternative for the unwashed masses without computer science degrees.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that RunRev doesn't "dumb down" anything except the programmer.  It's a complete struggle to use, but really only because it's not a stable programming environment.  If it worked as advertised, we would be awash in RunRev apps.  In my opinion, and it's just my opinion (as the owner of an Enterprise license from RunRev), Runtime Revolution is amateur night in the programming world.  On the other hand, Tcl/Tk has a totally whacked syntax (upvar anyone?) but it is very fast and very very stable.  Especially version 8.4 (you can get it from ActiveState for Windows).  wxPython is probably the best choice, however, and you can create binary apps if commercial is your thing.</p><p>Is it just me, or is commercial development software in general becoming more buggy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to use this language/RAD environment .
Kept getting hit with show stopping bugs .
There 's a million of them .
For starters , the plugin for web content apparently runs continuously as a process in the background .
Do n't know if they fixed that yet .
Of if they will .
Uninstallers and updaters did n't work ( uninstaller corrupted my Windows registry for version 3.5 ) .
The memory management is awful , and leaks abound when using externals ( for example , databases and browsers ) .
The list goes on .
And on .
Right now this is a very pretty package , but it 's not ready for the big leagues .
The underlying code needs to be vetted .
I 'd recommend sticking with open source alternatives such as wxpython or Tcl/Tk if you want to avoid these issues .
There is nothing more frustrating than having a show stopping bug and having to deal with a commercial vendor that wo n't give you the time day or treats you like a child .
I think " opacity " is the word that describes them.A big problem here is that there is a niche of programmers that wants/needs to create commercial applications , especially for entertainment and education needs , but the RAD tools have really gone to hell from the commercial vendors .
I started out using Authorware in 1998 , which was quite lovingly " discontinued , " but was very stable .
Then came Macromedia Director , which was god damned rock solid through MX 2004 ( although essentially abandoned for Flash by Macromedia ; they had like one engineer working on it at the time of the sale to Adobe ) .
Adobe took Director and sent the code base to Bangalore , India , to a bunch of engineers who 've made a complete mess out of things from what I can tell .
I do n't think its a coincidence that the CEO of Adobe is a graduate of the universities of India himself .
Anyway , they 're stuck at version 11.5 , which is an unholy pile of junk ( and it will cost you a cool grand , btw ) .
Director , the program that built Macromedia , is essentially dead and along with it just about the only commercial programming alternative for the unwashed masses without computer science degrees.The fact of the matter is that RunRev does n't " dumb down " anything except the programmer .
It 's a complete struggle to use , but really only because it 's not a stable programming environment .
If it worked as advertised , we would be awash in RunRev apps .
In my opinion , and it 's just my opinion ( as the owner of an Enterprise license from RunRev ) , Runtime Revolution is amateur night in the programming world .
On the other hand , Tcl/Tk has a totally whacked syntax ( upvar anyone ?
) but it is very fast and very very stable .
Especially version 8.4 ( you can get it from ActiveState for Windows ) .
wxPython is probably the best choice , however , and you can create binary apps if commercial is your thing.Is it just me , or is commercial development software in general becoming more buggy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to use this language/RAD environment.
Kept getting hit with show stopping bugs.
There's a million of them.
For starters, the plugin for web content apparently runs continuously as a process in the background.
Don't know if they fixed that yet.
Of if they will.
Uninstallers and updaters didn't work (uninstaller corrupted my Windows registry for version 3.5).
The memory management is awful, and leaks abound when using externals (for example, databases and browsers).
The list goes on.
And on.
Right now this is a very pretty package, but it's not ready for the big leagues.
The underlying code needs to be vetted.
I'd recommend sticking with open source alternatives such as wxpython or Tcl/Tk if you want to avoid these issues.
There is nothing more frustrating than having a show stopping bug and having to deal with a commercial vendor that won't give you the time day or treats you like a child.
I think "opacity" is the word that describes them.A big problem here is that there is a niche of programmers that wants/needs to create commercial applications, especially for entertainment and education needs, but the RAD tools have really gone to hell from the commercial vendors.
I started out using Authorware in 1998, which was quite lovingly "discontinued," but was very stable.
Then came Macromedia Director, which was god damned rock solid through MX 2004 (although essentially abandoned for Flash by Macromedia; they had like one engineer working on it at the time of the sale to Adobe).
Adobe took Director and sent the code base to Bangalore, India, to a bunch of engineers who've made a complete mess out of things from what I can tell.
I don't think its a coincidence that the CEO of Adobe is a graduate of the universities of India himself.
Anyway, they're stuck at version 11.5, which is an unholy pile of junk (and it will cost you a cool grand, btw).
Director, the program that built Macromedia, is essentially dead and along with it just about the only commercial programming alternative for the unwashed masses without computer science degrees.The fact of the matter is that RunRev doesn't "dumb down" anything except the programmer.
It's a complete struggle to use, but really only because it's not a stable programming environment.
If it worked as advertised, we would be awash in RunRev apps.
In my opinion, and it's just my opinion (as the owner of an Enterprise license from RunRev), Runtime Revolution is amateur night in the programming world.
On the other hand, Tcl/Tk has a totally whacked syntax (upvar anyone?
) but it is very fast and very very stable.
Especially version 8.4 (you can get it from ActiveState for Windows).
wxPython is probably the best choice, however, and you can create binary apps if commercial is your thing.Is it just me, or is commercial development software in general becoming more buggy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240906</id>
	<title>Re:Lowering the bar</title>
	<author>Balial</author>
	<datestamp>1259240340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see that as a side effect of those languages being too hard for the average programmer. And, let's face it, the average programmer is still average.</p><p>The more burden you take off the programmer to address their specific issue and not have to deal with crap like, say, date formats, then the higher quality the average program becomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see that as a side effect of those languages being too hard for the average programmer .
And , let 's face it , the average programmer is still average.The more burden you take off the programmer to address their specific issue and not have to deal with crap like , say , date formats , then the higher quality the average program becomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see that as a side effect of those languages being too hard for the average programmer.
And, let's face it, the average programmer is still average.The more burden you take off the programmer to address their specific issue and not have to deal with crap like, say, date formats, then the higher quality the average program becomes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241856</id>
	<title>It will be just as successful as previous attempts</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259248800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... which is to say, not at all.</p><p>The idea is not new, and something like this has been tried pretty much since the notion of a programming language higher-level than assembler was invented. Most of them die straight away. A few enjoy brief prominence, but then die anyway (e.g. dBase and dialects, and many other "4GL").</p><p>Very few survive and take over some niche, but by that time they've inevitably strayed from the original "can be understood by any random guy" design goal. One example of such is SQL - yes, originally, it was intended to be a language in which managers and like-minded non-techies could easily write queries for reports etc. Yeah, right... every time I'm explaining why you can't write WHERE after GROUP BY, and have to use HAVING instead, I chuckle to myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... which is to say , not at all.The idea is not new , and something like this has been tried pretty much since the notion of a programming language higher-level than assembler was invented .
Most of them die straight away .
A few enjoy brief prominence , but then die anyway ( e.g .
dBase and dialects , and many other " 4GL " ) .Very few survive and take over some niche , but by that time they 've inevitably strayed from the original " can be understood by any random guy " design goal .
One example of such is SQL - yes , originally , it was intended to be a language in which managers and like-minded non-techies could easily write queries for reports etc .
Yeah , right... every time I 'm explaining why you ca n't write WHERE after GROUP BY , and have to use HAVING instead , I chuckle to myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... which is to say, not at all.The idea is not new, and something like this has been tried pretty much since the notion of a programming language higher-level than assembler was invented.
Most of them die straight away.
A few enjoy brief prominence, but then die anyway (e.g.
dBase and dialects, and many other "4GL").Very few survive and take over some niche, but by that time they've inevitably strayed from the original "can be understood by any random guy" design goal.
One example of such is SQL - yes, originally, it was intended to be a language in which managers and like-minded non-techies could easily write queries for reports etc.
Yeah, right... every time I'm explaining why you can't write WHERE after GROUP BY, and have to use HAVING instead, I chuckle to myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242294</id>
	<title>So what if it's easier or "dumber"?</title>
	<author>Infernal Device</author>
	<datestamp>1259253900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what if it's easier or dumber or whatever?</p><p>Most of us aren't out there revolutionizing the world with our leet skills - we're pulling numbers out of a database and shuffling them into some other database. It happens - we get paid.</p><p>If this language gets some of the shovelwork off my back and frees up time for me to solve some interesting problems, then I'm all in favor of it. If it provides a way for me to earn an income (or someone else to) then I'm all in favor of it.</p><p>If it gets a few more people interested in programming, I think the world can handle that. Just because there's a new language on the block doesn't mean that all the other languages are suddenly useless. After all, we still have stuff written in COBOL floating around.</p><p>The big picture guys will still hire programmers to do what we do because we can think about a task and break it down into it's component steps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if it 's easier or dumber or whatever ? Most of us are n't out there revolutionizing the world with our leet skills - we 're pulling numbers out of a database and shuffling them into some other database .
It happens - we get paid.If this language gets some of the shovelwork off my back and frees up time for me to solve some interesting problems , then I 'm all in favor of it .
If it provides a way for me to earn an income ( or someone else to ) then I 'm all in favor of it.If it gets a few more people interested in programming , I think the world can handle that .
Just because there 's a new language on the block does n't mean that all the other languages are suddenly useless .
After all , we still have stuff written in COBOL floating around.The big picture guys will still hire programmers to do what we do because we can think about a task and break it down into it 's component steps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if it's easier or dumber or whatever?Most of us aren't out there revolutionizing the world with our leet skills - we're pulling numbers out of a database and shuffling them into some other database.
It happens - we get paid.If this language gets some of the shovelwork off my back and frees up time for me to solve some interesting problems, then I'm all in favor of it.
If it provides a way for me to earn an income (or someone else to) then I'm all in favor of it.If it gets a few more people interested in programming, I think the world can handle that.
Just because there's a new language on the block doesn't mean that all the other languages are suddenly useless.
After all, we still have stuff written in COBOL floating around.The big picture guys will still hire programmers to do what we do because we can think about a task and break it down into it's component steps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243010</id>
	<title>Syntax won't help; cooperation might</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1259262420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
An "English-like syntax" won't help. It's been tried, starting with COBOL-60.  Things to look up: "The Last One", "ZoomRacks", "HyperCard".  The programming language of HyperCard, HyperTalk, was amazingly similar to COBOL-60.
</p><p>
But that's not the right question.  The question is, can programming be made easier by having the computer help the user more?  Not with command completion or syntax coloring, but with something that has more of a clue about what the user is trying to do.
</p><p>
It's worth realizing that spreadsheets are the predominant "user programming" system.  Within their domain, they're straightforward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An " English-like syntax " wo n't help .
It 's been tried , starting with COBOL-60 .
Things to look up : " The Last One " , " ZoomRacks " , " HyperCard " .
The programming language of HyperCard , HyperTalk , was amazingly similar to COBOL-60 .
But that 's not the right question .
The question is , can programming be made easier by having the computer help the user more ?
Not with command completion or syntax coloring , but with something that has more of a clue about what the user is trying to do .
It 's worth realizing that spreadsheets are the predominant " user programming " system .
Within their domain , they 're straightforward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
An "English-like syntax" won't help.
It's been tried, starting with COBOL-60.
Things to look up: "The Last One", "ZoomRacks", "HyperCard".
The programming language of HyperCard, HyperTalk, was amazingly similar to COBOL-60.
But that's not the right question.
The question is, can programming be made easier by having the computer help the user more?
Not with command completion or syntax coloring, but with something that has more of a clue about what the user is trying to do.
It's worth realizing that spreadsheets are the predominant "user programming" system.
Within their domain, they're straightforward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243296</id>
	<title>Re:Submarine article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259353020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a great article, and I have to say that I love most of what Graham has written over the years. But it's heartbreaking to be reminded of what everyone thought blogging was going to be back then. A great scythe separating the journalistic wheat from PR company chaff. Honest people writing for the love of it.</p><p>As it turns out, the technology has nothing to do with the percentage of people who are in it for the love of it and the people who are in it for the money. Blogs have their own special kind of folly: linkbait. Example: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/</p><p>It's perhaps one of the most popular design blogs. Why? Is it because of all of the insightful, original content? Hell no. It's because each post is of the form (50 greatest X), and that's the stuff that everyone's tweeting and digging and socially bookmarking.</p><p>The problem is not "structural" because the problem is not with print. The problem is not lazy journalists or the pace of news media. The problem is that people are stupid, and they're willing to pay you for the privilege of remaining that way. It was great when new media was bleeding edge. As I'm sure it was when the web was young. As I'm sure it was when USENET was young. Eventually middle America gets on board. Once supply caught up with demand, even blogs ended up being nothing special, and once again you have to wade through tons of tripe to find a well-written article. Google's not going to help you when their algorithm is based on links and most people link to garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a great article , and I have to say that I love most of what Graham has written over the years .
But it 's heartbreaking to be reminded of what everyone thought blogging was going to be back then .
A great scythe separating the journalistic wheat from PR company chaff .
Honest people writing for the love of it.As it turns out , the technology has nothing to do with the percentage of people who are in it for the love of it and the people who are in it for the money .
Blogs have their own special kind of folly : linkbait .
Example : http : //www.smashingmagazine.com/It 's perhaps one of the most popular design blogs .
Why ? Is it because of all of the insightful , original content ?
Hell no .
It 's because each post is of the form ( 50 greatest X ) , and that 's the stuff that everyone 's tweeting and digging and socially bookmarking.The problem is not " structural " because the problem is not with print .
The problem is not lazy journalists or the pace of news media .
The problem is that people are stupid , and they 're willing to pay you for the privilege of remaining that way .
It was great when new media was bleeding edge .
As I 'm sure it was when the web was young .
As I 'm sure it was when USENET was young .
Eventually middle America gets on board .
Once supply caught up with demand , even blogs ended up being nothing special , and once again you have to wade through tons of tripe to find a well-written article .
Google 's not going to help you when their algorithm is based on links and most people link to garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a great article, and I have to say that I love most of what Graham has written over the years.
But it's heartbreaking to be reminded of what everyone thought blogging was going to be back then.
A great scythe separating the journalistic wheat from PR company chaff.
Honest people writing for the love of it.As it turns out, the technology has nothing to do with the percentage of people who are in it for the love of it and the people who are in it for the money.
Blogs have their own special kind of folly: linkbait.
Example: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/It's perhaps one of the most popular design blogs.
Why? Is it because of all of the insightful, original content?
Hell no.
It's because each post is of the form (50 greatest X), and that's the stuff that everyone's tweeting and digging and socially bookmarking.The problem is not "structural" because the problem is not with print.
The problem is not lazy journalists or the pace of news media.
The problem is that people are stupid, and they're willing to pay you for the privilege of remaining that way.
It was great when new media was bleeding edge.
As I'm sure it was when the web was young.
As I'm sure it was when USENET was young.
Eventually middle America gets on board.
Once supply caught up with demand, even blogs ended up being nothing special, and once again you have to wade through tons of tripe to find a well-written article.
Google's not going to help you when their algorithm is based on links and most people link to garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245220</id>
	<title>for all the trolls here, I've used this for 5 yrs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259335620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi Folks,<br>
<br>
I see many people here complaining about this language without even trying to understand it, most people here never ever used this, so how can they complain? I've been using Rev for about 5 or 6 years now, I run a single person consulting business here and I've delivered web applications, desktop applications for mac, windows and linux for many US Universities and foreign universities among other serious clients. I've done it all in Rev without ever reverting to an external (this is what we call C modules), I am able to do all my network, RDBMS, logic and gui needs in Rev alone and deliver native applications to the big three OSes out there (mac, win and linux), now with RevServer (our PHP like engine), I am also able to reuse the same business code in a webapp.<br>
<br>
Revolution represents a hug advantage for me because I can really code faster in it, I am not pulling magic numbers from a hat here, I am saying from personal hands on experience for at least 5 years. Before Rev I've coded in C, DELPHI, VB, REBOL, RealBASIC and Scheme (could never deliver a scheme app). My code is as fast any other but was developed faster and cheaper for me, so it means that I can develop more software for less, which is great for someone in the consulting business. Let me summarize what I think are the great Rev strenghts:<br>
<br>
The english like syntax is great, at first I found it too verbose but it grew on me. It is a great feature for those that are just comming into programming, for the seasoned coder, I think it is an acquired taste. We all can code with dot notations, OOP stuff, we are confortable with cryptic syntax such as i++; with all our tokens and semicolons but I regard those like stocolm syndrome, we've used hostile syntax for so long that now we think that if it is human readable and clear then it is bad for some esoteric reason that we can't really explain. This whole discussion about what code is bigger is actually irrelevant, the discussion should be what code is easier to write and maintain. Rev code is actually pleasant. I'd take something like "put char -1 of word 2 of line 5 of field "name" into mySweetVariable" over any split and dot notation or regex thing.<br>
<br>
In Rev we avoid the write-compile-debug loop. With environments such as VB and Delphi, your standard workflow would be to code a little, build your application launch it attached to a debugger and check for bugs. This is tedious and time consuming. In Rev, like those graphic programs such as photoshop, we have a pointer tool that can be in interact mode or edit mode, if it is in interact mode you can click around your application just like a user using it, the edit mode you use to select controls to change properties or script, so with a flick of the mouse, not compilation needed, I can try my app from inside the environment. This is huge! It is like a lisp REPL or some other interactive mode in other languages but graphical, try as you build and yes, we have a debugger that works with those tools, we often just build standalones by the end of development process after all is tested. I can't stress how faster this make you code, you can experiment much more in interactive environments such as Rev than you would do if you're coding in C.<br>
<br>
Another very important feature is the ability to deploy on Linux, Mac, Windows from the same code with no modification, it just builds standalones for all those systems. Imagine you're a VB developer or a C developer, you code mostly on windows for example, then a prospective client quotes for a simple macintosh desktop application, with VB you're simply lost, with C there's a whole lot of new APIs to learn if you don't use a cross platform GUI toolkit. With Rev, you just code normally and in the end checks the "build for Mac OS". (before the pedantry, you should have a mac and mac os knowledge before trying to deliver professional apps for that platform, but you get the idea.). Now with RevServer we can write webapps (we could before but was harder) and with RevWeb plugin we'll be able</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi Folks , I see many people here complaining about this language without even trying to understand it , most people here never ever used this , so how can they complain ?
I 've been using Rev for about 5 or 6 years now , I run a single person consulting business here and I 've delivered web applications , desktop applications for mac , windows and linux for many US Universities and foreign universities among other serious clients .
I 've done it all in Rev without ever reverting to an external ( this is what we call C modules ) , I am able to do all my network , RDBMS , logic and gui needs in Rev alone and deliver native applications to the big three OSes out there ( mac , win and linux ) , now with RevServer ( our PHP like engine ) , I am also able to reuse the same business code in a webapp .
Revolution represents a hug advantage for me because I can really code faster in it , I am not pulling magic numbers from a hat here , I am saying from personal hands on experience for at least 5 years .
Before Rev I 've coded in C , DELPHI , VB , REBOL , RealBASIC and Scheme ( could never deliver a scheme app ) .
My code is as fast any other but was developed faster and cheaper for me , so it means that I can develop more software for less , which is great for someone in the consulting business .
Let me summarize what I think are the great Rev strenghts : The english like syntax is great , at first I found it too verbose but it grew on me .
It is a great feature for those that are just comming into programming , for the seasoned coder , I think it is an acquired taste .
We all can code with dot notations , OOP stuff , we are confortable with cryptic syntax such as i + + ; with all our tokens and semicolons but I regard those like stocolm syndrome , we 've used hostile syntax for so long that now we think that if it is human readable and clear then it is bad for some esoteric reason that we ca n't really explain .
This whole discussion about what code is bigger is actually irrelevant , the discussion should be what code is easier to write and maintain .
Rev code is actually pleasant .
I 'd take something like " put char -1 of word 2 of line 5 of field " name " into mySweetVariable " over any split and dot notation or regex thing .
In Rev we avoid the write-compile-debug loop .
With environments such as VB and Delphi , your standard workflow would be to code a little , build your application launch it attached to a debugger and check for bugs .
This is tedious and time consuming .
In Rev , like those graphic programs such as photoshop , we have a pointer tool that can be in interact mode or edit mode , if it is in interact mode you can click around your application just like a user using it , the edit mode you use to select controls to change properties or script , so with a flick of the mouse , not compilation needed , I can try my app from inside the environment .
This is huge !
It is like a lisp REPL or some other interactive mode in other languages but graphical , try as you build and yes , we have a debugger that works with those tools , we often just build standalones by the end of development process after all is tested .
I ca n't stress how faster this make you code , you can experiment much more in interactive environments such as Rev than you would do if you 're coding in C . Another very important feature is the ability to deploy on Linux , Mac , Windows from the same code with no modification , it just builds standalones for all those systems .
Imagine you 're a VB developer or a C developer , you code mostly on windows for example , then a prospective client quotes for a simple macintosh desktop application , with VB you 're simply lost , with C there 's a whole lot of new APIs to learn if you do n't use a cross platform GUI toolkit .
With Rev , you just code normally and in the end checks the " build for Mac OS " .
( before the pedantry , you should have a mac and mac os knowledge before trying to deliver professional apps for that platform , but you get the idea. ) .
Now with RevServer we can write webapps ( we could before but was harder ) and with RevWeb plugin we 'll be able</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi Folks,

I see many people here complaining about this language without even trying to understand it, most people here never ever used this, so how can they complain?
I've been using Rev for about 5 or 6 years now, I run a single person consulting business here and I've delivered web applications, desktop applications for mac, windows and linux for many US Universities and foreign universities among other serious clients.
I've done it all in Rev without ever reverting to an external (this is what we call C modules), I am able to do all my network, RDBMS, logic and gui needs in Rev alone and deliver native applications to the big three OSes out there (mac, win and linux), now with RevServer (our PHP like engine), I am also able to reuse the same business code in a webapp.
Revolution represents a hug advantage for me because I can really code faster in it, I am not pulling magic numbers from a hat here, I am saying from personal hands on experience for at least 5 years.
Before Rev I've coded in C, DELPHI, VB, REBOL, RealBASIC and Scheme (could never deliver a scheme app).
My code is as fast any other but was developed faster and cheaper for me, so it means that I can develop more software for less, which is great for someone in the consulting business.
Let me summarize what I think are the great Rev strenghts:

The english like syntax is great, at first I found it too verbose but it grew on me.
It is a great feature for those that are just comming into programming, for the seasoned coder, I think it is an acquired taste.
We all can code with dot notations, OOP stuff, we are confortable with cryptic syntax such as i++; with all our tokens and semicolons but I regard those like stocolm syndrome, we've used hostile syntax for so long that now we think that if it is human readable and clear then it is bad for some esoteric reason that we can't really explain.
This whole discussion about what code is bigger is actually irrelevant, the discussion should be what code is easier to write and maintain.
Rev code is actually pleasant.
I'd take something like "put char -1 of word 2 of line 5 of field "name" into mySweetVariable" over any split and dot notation or regex thing.
In Rev we avoid the write-compile-debug loop.
With environments such as VB and Delphi, your standard workflow would be to code a little, build your application launch it attached to a debugger and check for bugs.
This is tedious and time consuming.
In Rev, like those graphic programs such as photoshop, we have a pointer tool that can be in interact mode or edit mode, if it is in interact mode you can click around your application just like a user using it, the edit mode you use to select controls to change properties or script, so with a flick of the mouse, not compilation needed, I can try my app from inside the environment.
This is huge!
It is like a lisp REPL or some other interactive mode in other languages but graphical, try as you build and yes, we have a debugger that works with those tools, we often just build standalones by the end of development process after all is tested.
I can't stress how faster this make you code, you can experiment much more in interactive environments such as Rev than you would do if you're coding in C.

Another very important feature is the ability to deploy on Linux, Mac, Windows from the same code with no modification, it just builds standalones for all those systems.
Imagine you're a VB developer or a C developer, you code mostly on windows for example, then a prospective client quotes for a simple macintosh desktop application, with VB you're simply lost, with C there's a whole lot of new APIs to learn if you don't use a cross platform GUI toolkit.
With Rev, you just code normally and in the end checks the "build for Mac OS".
(before the pedantry, you should have a mac and mac os knowledge before trying to deliver professional apps for that platform, but you get the idea.).
Now with RevServer we can write webapps (we could before but was harder) and with RevWeb plugin we'll be able</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243126</id>
	<title>Some misunderstandings here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll just address a few things mentioned here. I'm a professional developer who's been using Rev for many years. Sorry for the anonymous account but I'm unwilling to create an account here just for a single response.</p><p>&gt; I do wonder what the limits of this language are feature-wise.<br>&gt; What type of applications could you NOT make with this language?</p><p>I can't think of much, there are few limits. When Rev was primarily for writing desktop applications, it could also be used on the web as a command-line CGI, but that's all. Now that the web plugin has been released it can replace PHP and similar languages (I have a whole web site built with their server-side product.) It's major strength is string manipulation, but it has all the elements and structures you'd expect of a robust programming language. Users have created commercial apps, utilities, web pages, CGIs, games, database programs (it's a good front end for SQL), shell front ends, you name it. Coding is very, very fast. It's no lie that it takes only half the time as other languages.</p><p>&gt; [Self-documenting code]  Where the naming and flow make it perfectly clear<br>&gt; what the program is doing  without any further explanations.</p><p>Couldn't agree more. Since the language flows and reads like English, it self documents better than any other language I have seen. I suppose it's all what you're used to, but when it reads like English it's pretty self-documenting.</p><p>&gt;Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of<br>&gt;programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user<br>&gt;whose mind can express algorithms.</p><p>Yes, and well said. The Rev mailing list is full of programmers who have converted from other, more traditional languages. They now prefer Rev. Some of them have been coding from the punch card days (I know because there was recently a humorous discussion about that) and one developer even wrote a Rev app that simulates punch card programming. Pretty funny. We have Java, C++, PHP, Javascript, even some old assembly programmers who now embrace Rev. I'm a bit disturbed by the term "dumbing down". The language itself isn't dumbed down. It's just verbose. But that is part of its beauty as well. More typing? Sure, some. Less coding? Absolutely. You can read in an entire text file of any length into a variable with no repeat loops required (though you could write it that way if you wanted.) Less code.</p><p>&gt;Mind you I only skimmed a couple pages in the tutorial but it's just a<br>&gt;programming language adding more words and more typing because it may do<br>&gt;something like spell out add rather than using +</p><p>Not exactly. You can use "+" if you want, it's in the language (and most of us do use it.) The difference is not that words are spelled out. The difference is that many whole *concepts* are spelled out. That's what makes it so fast to write. Where you need many lines of code in other languages, you only need one line in RevTalk. I have written string extractions in other languages, it's painful. In Rev, this works: get word 1 of "my dog has fleas". Someone mentioned flow -- this, to me, is good conceptual flow. It says exactly what I'm doing.</p><p>&gt;the syntax of rev4 seems far too verbose, not nearly enough parenthesis.</p><p>LOL. You can add as many parentheses as you want and it will still work. The deal is, you don't have to. If you are happier with: get (word 1 of ("my dog has fleas")) that'll work too.  Both these work fine:</p><p>if word 1 of myString = "my" or a = b then...</p><p>if (word 1 of mystring = "my") or (a = b) then...</p><p>&gt;it appears I need to install a plugin to view samples, which is a bit silly - I<br>&gt;just want to see the language</p><p>Everything is on the web site, and you don't need to install a plugin. Developer materials are here (the lessons are a new addition so aren't as complete yet as the other stuff): . Browse the extensive dictionary for a good insight into how the language works.</p><p>&gt;The idea is not ne</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just address a few things mentioned here .
I 'm a professional developer who 's been using Rev for many years .
Sorry for the anonymous account but I 'm unwilling to create an account here just for a single response. &gt; I do wonder what the limits of this language are feature-wise. &gt; What type of applications could you NOT make with this language ? I ca n't think of much , there are few limits .
When Rev was primarily for writing desktop applications , it could also be used on the web as a command-line CGI , but that 's all .
Now that the web plugin has been released it can replace PHP and similar languages ( I have a whole web site built with their server-side product .
) It 's major strength is string manipulation , but it has all the elements and structures you 'd expect of a robust programming language .
Users have created commercial apps , utilities , web pages , CGIs , games , database programs ( it 's a good front end for SQL ) , shell front ends , you name it .
Coding is very , very fast .
It 's no lie that it takes only half the time as other languages. &gt; [ Self-documenting code ] Where the naming and flow make it perfectly clear &gt; what the program is doing without any further explanations.Could n't agree more .
Since the language flows and reads like English , it self documents better than any other language I have seen .
I suppose it 's all what you 're used to , but when it reads like English it 's pretty self-documenting. &gt; Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of &gt; programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user &gt; whose mind can express algorithms.Yes , and well said .
The Rev mailing list is full of programmers who have converted from other , more traditional languages .
They now prefer Rev .
Some of them have been coding from the punch card days ( I know because there was recently a humorous discussion about that ) and one developer even wrote a Rev app that simulates punch card programming .
Pretty funny .
We have Java , C + + , PHP , Javascript , even some old assembly programmers who now embrace Rev .
I 'm a bit disturbed by the term " dumbing down " .
The language itself is n't dumbed down .
It 's just verbose .
But that is part of its beauty as well .
More typing ?
Sure , some .
Less coding ?
Absolutely. You can read in an entire text file of any length into a variable with no repeat loops required ( though you could write it that way if you wanted .
) Less code. &gt; Mind you I only skimmed a couple pages in the tutorial but it 's just a &gt; programming language adding more words and more typing because it may do &gt; something like spell out add rather than using + Not exactly .
You can use " + " if you want , it 's in the language ( and most of us do use it .
) The difference is not that words are spelled out .
The difference is that many whole * concepts * are spelled out .
That 's what makes it so fast to write .
Where you need many lines of code in other languages , you only need one line in RevTalk .
I have written string extractions in other languages , it 's painful .
In Rev , this works : get word 1 of " my dog has fleas " .
Someone mentioned flow -- this , to me , is good conceptual flow .
It says exactly what I 'm doing. &gt; the syntax of rev4 seems far too verbose , not nearly enough parenthesis.LOL .
You can add as many parentheses as you want and it will still work .
The deal is , you do n't have to .
If you are happier with : get ( word 1 of ( " my dog has fleas " ) ) that 'll work too .
Both these work fine : if word 1 of myString = " my " or a = b then...if ( word 1 of mystring = " my " ) or ( a = b ) then... &gt; it appears I need to install a plugin to view samples , which is a bit silly - I &gt; just want to see the languageEverything is on the web site , and you do n't need to install a plugin .
Developer materials are here ( the lessons are a new addition so are n't as complete yet as the other stuff ) : .
Browse the extensive dictionary for a good insight into how the language works. &gt; The idea is not ne</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just address a few things mentioned here.
I'm a professional developer who's been using Rev for many years.
Sorry for the anonymous account but I'm unwilling to create an account here just for a single response.&gt; I do wonder what the limits of this language are feature-wise.&gt; What type of applications could you NOT make with this language?I can't think of much, there are few limits.
When Rev was primarily for writing desktop applications, it could also be used on the web as a command-line CGI, but that's all.
Now that the web plugin has been released it can replace PHP and similar languages (I have a whole web site built with their server-side product.
) It's major strength is string manipulation, but it has all the elements and structures you'd expect of a robust programming language.
Users have created commercial apps, utilities, web pages, CGIs, games, database programs (it's a good front end for SQL), shell front ends, you name it.
Coding is very, very fast.
It's no lie that it takes only half the time as other languages.&gt; [Self-documenting code]  Where the naming and flow make it perfectly clear&gt; what the program is doing  without any further explanations.Couldn't agree more.
Since the language flows and reads like English, it self documents better than any other language I have seen.
I suppose it's all what you're used to, but when it reads like English it's pretty self-documenting.&gt;Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of&gt;programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user&gt;whose mind can express algorithms.Yes, and well said.
The Rev mailing list is full of programmers who have converted from other, more traditional languages.
They now prefer Rev.
Some of them have been coding from the punch card days (I know because there was recently a humorous discussion about that) and one developer even wrote a Rev app that simulates punch card programming.
Pretty funny.
We have Java, C++, PHP, Javascript, even some old assembly programmers who now embrace Rev.
I'm a bit disturbed by the term "dumbing down".
The language itself isn't dumbed down.
It's just verbose.
But that is part of its beauty as well.
More typing?
Sure, some.
Less coding?
Absolutely. You can read in an entire text file of any length into a variable with no repeat loops required (though you could write it that way if you wanted.
) Less code.&gt;Mind you I only skimmed a couple pages in the tutorial but it's just a&gt;programming language adding more words and more typing because it may do&gt;something like spell out add rather than using +Not exactly.
You can use "+" if you want, it's in the language (and most of us do use it.
) The difference is not that words are spelled out.
The difference is that many whole *concepts* are spelled out.
That's what makes it so fast to write.
Where you need many lines of code in other languages, you only need one line in RevTalk.
I have written string extractions in other languages, it's painful.
In Rev, this works: get word 1 of "my dog has fleas".
Someone mentioned flow -- this, to me, is good conceptual flow.
It says exactly what I'm doing.&gt;the syntax of rev4 seems far too verbose, not nearly enough parenthesis.LOL.
You can add as many parentheses as you want and it will still work.
The deal is, you don't have to.
If you are happier with: get (word 1 of ("my dog has fleas")) that'll work too.
Both these work fine:if word 1 of myString = "my" or a = b then...if (word 1 of mystring = "my") or (a = b) then...&gt;it appears I need to install a plugin to view samples, which is a bit silly - I&gt;just want to see the languageEverything is on the web site, and you don't need to install a plugin.
Developer materials are here (the lessons are a new addition so aren't as complete yet as the other stuff): .
Browse the extensive dictionary for a good insight into how the language works.&gt;The idea is not ne</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244614</id>
	<title>Re:Rev4 syntax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259328360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i certainly won't use rev4 to program a robot to "throw me down the stairs, my hat."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i certainly wo n't use rev4 to program a robot to " throw me down the stairs , my hat .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i certainly won't use rev4 to program a robot to "throw me down the stairs, my hat.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986</id>
	<title>Quit complaining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259233200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok stop acting like Luddites and embrace the new economy.   Programming is currently complicated and requires costly developers to write and maintain.   In order to increase efficency, lower payroll, and satisfy shareholder demand, languages like runrev should be embraced by business.

</p><p>This innovation is no different than automation on the assembly line.   The global economy has changed around you - it is time to recognize trends and retrain.  Otherwise you may find yourself out of a job and career.

</p><p>/snark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok stop acting like Luddites and embrace the new economy .
Programming is currently complicated and requires costly developers to write and maintain .
In order to increase efficency , lower payroll , and satisfy shareholder demand , languages like runrev should be embraced by business .
This innovation is no different than automation on the assembly line .
The global economy has changed around you - it is time to recognize trends and retrain .
Otherwise you may find yourself out of a job and career .
/snark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok stop acting like Luddites and embrace the new economy.
Programming is currently complicated and requires costly developers to write and maintain.
In order to increase efficency, lower payroll, and satisfy shareholder demand, languages like runrev should be embraced by business.
This innovation is no different than automation on the assembly line.
The global economy has changed around you - it is time to recognize trends and retrain.
Otherwise you may find yourself out of a job and career.
/snark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247346</id>
	<title>language is just a tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259349900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The focus on languages puts too much focus on the tool. There are many languages in the world but most people of whatever culture have little of importance to say.
<br> <br>
PROGRAMMING is the production of a useful set of instructions for a machine to follow. That means you must ANALYZE the problem and realize that you must make decisions about every possible result of every possible path. That is the hard part of programming. Providing languages that aren't so hard help get folks to realize the crux of the issue isn't the programming, it is the THINKING. If programming classes didn't have to spend so much time on semicolons and proper indenting, they could spend more time on how to properly frame a problem statement in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The focus on languages puts too much focus on the tool .
There are many languages in the world but most people of whatever culture have little of importance to say .
PROGRAMMING is the production of a useful set of instructions for a machine to follow .
That means you must ANALYZE the problem and realize that you must make decisions about every possible result of every possible path .
That is the hard part of programming .
Providing languages that are n't so hard help get folks to realize the crux of the issue is n't the programming , it is the THINKING .
If programming classes did n't have to spend so much time on semicolons and proper indenting , they could spend more time on how to properly frame a problem statement in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The focus on languages puts too much focus on the tool.
There are many languages in the world but most people of whatever culture have little of importance to say.
PROGRAMMING is the production of a useful set of instructions for a machine to follow.
That means you must ANALYZE the problem and realize that you must make decisions about every possible result of every possible path.
That is the hard part of programming.
Providing languages that aren't so hard help get folks to realize the crux of the issue isn't the programming, it is the THINKING.
If programming classes didn't have to spend so much time on semicolons and proper indenting, they could spend more time on how to properly frame a problem statement in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239982</id>
	<title>Little point in trying</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1259233140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user whose mind can express algorithms. And of all the people who can express algorithms and would want to, few are limited by the commonly used languages, that is, if you have a mind made for creating algorithms, learning to use a programming language will be fairly trivial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user whose mind can express algorithms .
And of all the people who can express algorithms and would want to , few are limited by the commonly used languages , that is , if you have a mind made for creating algorithms , learning to use a programming language will be fairly trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user whose mind can express algorithms.
And of all the people who can express algorithms and would want to, few are limited by the commonly used languages, that is, if you have a mind made for creating algorithms, learning to use a programming language will be fairly trivial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243058</id>
	<title>English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259263380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 / 10 is not equal 0.1 any way</p><p>And there is no make\_me\_feel\_good() or do\_what\_i\_want()</p><p>Put "runrev" to the furnace</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 / 10 is not equal 0.1 any wayAnd there is no make \ _me \ _feel \ _good ( ) or do \ _what \ _i \ _want ( ) Put " runrev " to the furnace</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 / 10 is not equal 0.1 any wayAnd there is no make\_me\_feel\_good() or do\_what\_i\_want()Put "runrev" to the furnace</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240292</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1259235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that's the case, then the shareholders better get used to shitty software written by people with no experience and no discipline, which get more expensive and difficult to manage all the time.  They should be ready for "cheap" in-house apps written by non-programmers to cost them progressively more as time goes by, until the cost outweighs what simply an initial investment in someone with experience and know-how would have cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's the case , then the shareholders better get used to shitty software written by people with no experience and no discipline , which get more expensive and difficult to manage all the time .
They should be ready for " cheap " in-house apps written by non-programmers to cost them progressively more as time goes by , until the cost outweighs what simply an initial investment in someone with experience and know-how would have cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's the case, then the shareholders better get used to shitty software written by people with no experience and no discipline, which get more expensive and difficult to manage all the time.
They should be ready for "cheap" in-house apps written by non-programmers to cost them progressively more as time goes by, until the cost outweighs what simply an initial investment in someone with experience and know-how would have cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242694</id>
	<title>If it's not bare-metal assembly,</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1259257860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's dumbed down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's dumbed down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's dumbed down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240062</id>
	<title>Time to read "No Silver Bullet" again</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1259233740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SoftwareEngineering/BrooksNoSilverBullet.html" title="virtualschool.edu">http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SoftwareEngineering/BrooksNoSilverBullet.html</a> [virtualschool.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SoftwareEngineering/BrooksNoSilverBullet.html [ virtualschool.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SoftwareEngineering/BrooksNoSilverBullet.html [virtualschool.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900</id>
	<title>A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

There's two major sides to this issue.  One seems (note I said <i>seems</i>, not implying at all that it's unavoidable) to be that the more human readable and dummy proof the more overhead you pay when you design/implement a programming language.  You might find the C/C++ crowd commonly accuse the Java or Ruby crowd of this overhead.  Indeed, Java has a garbage collector designed to protect you from memory leaks and Ruby is an interpreted language that pays a mild additional overhead since it cannot be optimized upon compilation.  But that's another debate altogether, it just is evident that the more you move away from actual machine language and assembly then more overhead you pay (generally).  <br> <br>

The other side of this issue is that computers are our servants, not the other way around (and if anyone reading this is a bot or script, don't you forget that).  I don't recall where I read it but this is the reason why the string is the most important data structure in computer programming.  Because simply put, the string is the best way to communicate with the user.  What follows from this logic is to screw the optimizers (or 'misers, if you will) and make the servant learn the language of the master--not the other way around.  And isn't this how the most complex applications have progressed?  Once requiring training and years of experience, now even a kindergartner can master a word processor.  Computers and applications will forever be bending over backwards for the most important thing to us: us. <br> <br>

And yet if an implementation of a language incurs on average of 10\% overhead, your hardware will catch up in a matter of months.  <br> <br>

And yet if you run a data center the size of Google's and have several applications in said implementation running on hundreds of thousands of machines, a cycle here and a cycle there isn't so laughable to work toward saving.  And isn't it the big players that ensure the lengthy life of a language and its implementations?  <br> <br>

So it's a good debate with several sides.  Personally, I love the fact that I can code a web application in Ruby, run some old C code off sourceforge in Java with JNI (sort of) and bust out a C++ application for manipulating ID3 tags across my entire music library.  To those arguing against Rev4, I ask simply "why not?"  I mean, you don't have to use it, it's a natural progression  so let it happen.  Maybe you'll find it useful for prototyping?  Maybe you'll find it's a useful tool for <b>some</b> problems and your toolbox will grow?  Who knows?  <br> <br>

In the end, I would like to opine that the the chip makers are forcing us towards languages that make multi-threading more intuitive and useful.  I mean they concentrate on threads communicating or even implementing APIs to help automate (by enabling what is appropriate to multithread) in loops and algorithms.  That's going to be a large factor on whether a new language is adopted and survives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's two major sides to this issue .
One seems ( note I said seems , not implying at all that it 's unavoidable ) to be that the more human readable and dummy proof the more overhead you pay when you design/implement a programming language .
You might find the C/C + + crowd commonly accuse the Java or Ruby crowd of this overhead .
Indeed , Java has a garbage collector designed to protect you from memory leaks and Ruby is an interpreted language that pays a mild additional overhead since it can not be optimized upon compilation .
But that 's another debate altogether , it just is evident that the more you move away from actual machine language and assembly then more overhead you pay ( generally ) .
The other side of this issue is that computers are our servants , not the other way around ( and if anyone reading this is a bot or script , do n't you forget that ) .
I do n't recall where I read it but this is the reason why the string is the most important data structure in computer programming .
Because simply put , the string is the best way to communicate with the user .
What follows from this logic is to screw the optimizers ( or 'misers , if you will ) and make the servant learn the language of the master--not the other way around .
And is n't this how the most complex applications have progressed ?
Once requiring training and years of experience , now even a kindergartner can master a word processor .
Computers and applications will forever be bending over backwards for the most important thing to us : us .
And yet if an implementation of a language incurs on average of 10 \ % overhead , your hardware will catch up in a matter of months .
And yet if you run a data center the size of Google 's and have several applications in said implementation running on hundreds of thousands of machines , a cycle here and a cycle there is n't so laughable to work toward saving .
And is n't it the big players that ensure the lengthy life of a language and its implementations ?
So it 's a good debate with several sides .
Personally , I love the fact that I can code a web application in Ruby , run some old C code off sourceforge in Java with JNI ( sort of ) and bust out a C + + application for manipulating ID3 tags across my entire music library .
To those arguing against Rev4 , I ask simply " why not ?
" I mean , you do n't have to use it , it 's a natural progression so let it happen .
Maybe you 'll find it useful for prototyping ?
Maybe you 'll find it 's a useful tool for some problems and your toolbox will grow ?
Who knows ?
In the end , I would like to opine that the the chip makers are forcing us towards languages that make multi-threading more intuitive and useful .
I mean they concentrate on threads communicating or even implementing APIs to help automate ( by enabling what is appropriate to multithread ) in loops and algorithms .
That 's going to be a large factor on whether a new language is adopted and survives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

There's two major sides to this issue.
One seems (note I said seems, not implying at all that it's unavoidable) to be that the more human readable and dummy proof the more overhead you pay when you design/implement a programming language.
You might find the C/C++ crowd commonly accuse the Java or Ruby crowd of this overhead.
Indeed, Java has a garbage collector designed to protect you from memory leaks and Ruby is an interpreted language that pays a mild additional overhead since it cannot be optimized upon compilation.
But that's another debate altogether, it just is evident that the more you move away from actual machine language and assembly then more overhead you pay (generally).
The other side of this issue is that computers are our servants, not the other way around (and if anyone reading this is a bot or script, don't you forget that).
I don't recall where I read it but this is the reason why the string is the most important data structure in computer programming.
Because simply put, the string is the best way to communicate with the user.
What follows from this logic is to screw the optimizers (or 'misers, if you will) and make the servant learn the language of the master--not the other way around.
And isn't this how the most complex applications have progressed?
Once requiring training and years of experience, now even a kindergartner can master a word processor.
Computers and applications will forever be bending over backwards for the most important thing to us: us.
And yet if an implementation of a language incurs on average of 10\% overhead, your hardware will catch up in a matter of months.
And yet if you run a data center the size of Google's and have several applications in said implementation running on hundreds of thousands of machines, a cycle here and a cycle there isn't so laughable to work toward saving.
And isn't it the big players that ensure the lengthy life of a language and its implementations?
So it's a good debate with several sides.
Personally, I love the fact that I can code a web application in Ruby, run some old C code off sourceforge in Java with JNI (sort of) and bust out a C++ application for manipulating ID3 tags across my entire music library.
To those arguing against Rev4, I ask simply "why not?
"  I mean, you don't have to use it, it's a natural progression  so let it happen.
Maybe you'll find it useful for prototyping?
Maybe you'll find it's a useful tool for some problems and your toolbox will grow?
Who knows?
In the end, I would like to opine that the the chip makers are forcing us towards languages that make multi-threading more intuitive and useful.
I mean they concentrate on threads communicating or even implementing APIs to help automate (by enabling what is appropriate to multithread) in loops and algorithms.
That's going to be a large factor on whether a new language is adopted and survives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240328</id>
	<title>Re:xkcd relevance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if your ideas can be implemented in a "dumbed-down" language, then your problem is solved!</p><p>the chosen language needs to be an appropriate way of describing the tasks you want to do.  Simpler languages are bad. More complex languages are bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if your ideas can be implemented in a " dumbed-down " language , then your problem is solved ! the chosen language needs to be an appropriate way of describing the tasks you want to do .
Simpler languages are bad .
More complex languages are bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if your ideas can be implemented in a "dumbed-down" language, then your problem is solved!the chosen language needs to be an appropriate way of describing the tasks you want to do.
Simpler languages are bad.
More complex languages are bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30251724</id>
	<title>Re:language is just a tool</title>
	<author>I\_want\_information</author>
	<datestamp>1259333340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is precisely why the language <i>does</i> matter.  languages that depend heavily on properly placed dots/semicolons/curlicue brackets and indenting are simply more difficult to learn.  Writing proper pseudocode ends up being sacrificed for these things and, with RevTalk, the pseudocode ends up being pretty close to the real code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is precisely why the language does matter .
languages that depend heavily on properly placed dots/semicolons/curlicue brackets and indenting are simply more difficult to learn .
Writing proper pseudocode ends up being sacrificed for these things and , with RevTalk , the pseudocode ends up being pretty close to the real code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is precisely why the language does matter.
languages that depend heavily on properly placed dots/semicolons/curlicue brackets and indenting are simply more difficult to learn.
Writing proper pseudocode ends up being sacrificed for these things and, with RevTalk, the pseudocode ends up being pretty close to the real code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242624</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, yet exaggerated...</title>
	<author>arthur.gunn</author>
	<datestamp>1259257080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the PHP example here, I'm sure they'd be able to contrive such an example:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.pitchengine.com/brands/runrev/images/33419/PHPvsRevTalkCodeComparison.JPG" title="pitchengine.com" rel="nofollow">PHP vs. revTalk</a> [pitchengine.com]</p><p>Just for interest though, here's a ruby version:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://gist.github.com/243821" title="github.com" rel="nofollow">Ruby</a> [github.com]</p><p>10 lines - 42\% less code. And we could get that down to 6 if we were pushing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the PHP example here , I 'm sure they 'd be able to contrive such an example :         PHP vs. revTalk [ pitchengine.com ] Just for interest though , here 's a ruby version :         Ruby [ github.com ] 10 lines - 42 \ % less code .
And we could get that down to 6 if we were pushing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the PHP example here, I'm sure they'd be able to contrive such an example:
        PHP vs. revTalk [pitchengine.com]Just for interest though, here's a ruby version:
        Ruby [github.com]10 lines - 42\% less code.
And we could get that down to 6 if we were pushing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240338</id>
	<title>VisualBasic</title>
	<author>goathumper</author>
	<datestamp>1259236200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember the days of VisualBasic, when it was billed as a means to facilitate the development of applications without requiring any real programming or software (or computer, for that matter!) expertise. I also remember what came after those days...<p>
Simply put - though VB was "wildly successful" - but how many pieces of software built on it are still around *because they were built properly*?  Most of those tools have been thrown aside because they were grossly inadequate in performance, architecture, design, etc.</p><p>
I was a witness to countless fusterclucks and saw how many systems had to be re-done from scratch because some genius businessman believed what he read on the brochures only to realize that there was no such promise and now his hordes of customers were demanding delivery on the promises made.  Needless to say, there were no shortage of *REAL* programmer jobs in those days<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
The problem was never with the language per-se, as I'm sure the problem won't be with Rev4.  The problem was always with design, architecture, concepts, and implementation choices.  As noted above by the xkcd reference, there's no substitute for clarity regardless of the tool you choose to implement your program.</p><p>
I'm not knocking the tools themselves, I'm knocking the fact that they're billed as ways to "bring programming to the masses".</p><p>
Just like not everyone should handle nuclear material or toxic substances or operate on a human body, not everyone should *program* computers.  As such, the really big benefit I see for this kind of tool is as an end-user interface mechanism (or facilitator) - especially in conjunction with language recognition.  There are some interesting ideas there that are definitely worth exploring...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the days of VisualBasic , when it was billed as a means to facilitate the development of applications without requiring any real programming or software ( or computer , for that matter !
) expertise .
I also remember what came after those days.. . Simply put - though VB was " wildly successful " - but how many pieces of software built on it are still around * because they were built properly * ?
Most of those tools have been thrown aside because they were grossly inadequate in performance , architecture , design , etc .
I was a witness to countless fusterclucks and saw how many systems had to be re-done from scratch because some genius businessman believed what he read on the brochures only to realize that there was no such promise and now his hordes of customers were demanding delivery on the promises made .
Needless to say , there were no shortage of * REAL * programmer jobs in those days : ) The problem was never with the language per-se , as I 'm sure the problem wo n't be with Rev4 .
The problem was always with design , architecture , concepts , and implementation choices .
As noted above by the xkcd reference , there 's no substitute for clarity regardless of the tool you choose to implement your program .
I 'm not knocking the tools themselves , I 'm knocking the fact that they 're billed as ways to " bring programming to the masses " .
Just like not everyone should handle nuclear material or toxic substances or operate on a human body , not everyone should * program * computers .
As such , the really big benefit I see for this kind of tool is as an end-user interface mechanism ( or facilitator ) - especially in conjunction with language recognition .
There are some interesting ideas there that are definitely worth exploring.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the days of VisualBasic, when it was billed as a means to facilitate the development of applications without requiring any real programming or software (or computer, for that matter!
) expertise.
I also remember what came after those days...
Simply put - though VB was "wildly successful" - but how many pieces of software built on it are still around *because they were built properly*?
Most of those tools have been thrown aside because they were grossly inadequate in performance, architecture, design, etc.
I was a witness to countless fusterclucks and saw how many systems had to be re-done from scratch because some genius businessman believed what he read on the brochures only to realize that there was no such promise and now his hordes of customers were demanding delivery on the promises made.
Needless to say, there were no shortage of *REAL* programmer jobs in those days :)
The problem was never with the language per-se, as I'm sure the problem won't be with Rev4.
The problem was always with design, architecture, concepts, and implementation choices.
As noted above by the xkcd reference, there's no substitute for clarity regardless of the tool you choose to implement your program.
I'm not knocking the tools themselves, I'm knocking the fact that they're billed as ways to "bring programming to the masses".
Just like not everyone should handle nuclear material or toxic substances or operate on a human body, not everyone should *program* computers.
As such, the really big benefit I see for this kind of tool is as an end-user interface mechanism (or facilitator) - especially in conjunction with language recognition.
There are some interesting ideas there that are definitely worth exploring...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241630</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>hisstory student</author>
	<datestamp>1259246520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fewer<br>the word you were needing to use is 'fewer'.<br>".., the less programmers you have who are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.."<br>should read<br>".., the fewer programmers you have who are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..".<br>The general rule is, if you can count it/them, the correct word is 'fewer', not 'less'.</p><p>Sorry. It's just a fetish and pet peeve with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fewerthe word you were needing to use is 'fewer' .
" .. , the less programmers you have who are .. " should read " .. , the fewer programmers you have who are .. " .The general rule is , if you can count it/them , the correct word is 'fewer ' , not 'less'.Sorry .
It 's just a fetish and pet peeve with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fewerthe word you were needing to use is 'fewer'.
".., the less programmers you have who are .."should read".., the fewer programmers you have who are ..".The general rule is, if you can count it/them, the correct word is 'fewer', not 'less'.Sorry.
It's just a fetish and pet peeve with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240256</id>
	<title>Easy to read, yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259235540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can imagine that a lot of people that aren't programmers looks at this language (and the examples) and thinks that it's easy to learn.</p><p>Sure, it is easy to read, but is it easy to write?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine that a lot of people that are n't programmers looks at this language ( and the examples ) and thinks that it 's easy to learn.Sure , it is easy to read , but is it easy to write ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine that a lot of people that aren't programmers looks at this language (and the examples) and thinks that it's easy to learn.Sure, it is easy to read, but is it easy to write?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241184</id>
	<title>It sounds so familiar</title>
	<author>Lulu of the Lotus-Ea</author>
	<datestamp>1259242500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading almost all of these exact same marketing buzzwords and hype ten years ago.  The only difference was that then the "amazing, revolutionary language" was called REBOL.</p><p>Exact same business plan, as far as I can tell.  Exact same hyperbolic language.  Enough so that I wonder if the same copywriter did a search/replace on the old pamphlets.  It's yet another moderately OK high-level language, but that comes in three versions:</p><p>(1) Free (of cost), but fairly crippled<br>(2) Expensive<br>(3) "Enterprise", i.e. REALLY expensive.</p><p>And just like REBOL ten years ago, it promises "revolutionary" cross-platform support, while dropping or being slow to update the non-Windows versions.</p><p>The linked blog/review of the language seemed to have comments solely from paid-shills.  The reviewer himself was interesting, but all the comment at foot read like almost certain astroturfuing.... gee, just like REBOL did back in the 1990s.  When you actually look at the "amazingly readable and compact" code... well, it looks a lot like AppleScript and a few other similar approaches to syntax.  But one thing I noticed in particular is that the "unbelievably short" code samples were about the same as the ones I'd use in Python, or Ruby, or Perl, or AWK.  At least in length; Python feels more readable to me... once you give up the silly conceit that Rev syntax isn't syntax because it kinda-sorta-a-little-bit reads like English.  Rev *is* shorter than Java or C++, but that's not exactly anything amazing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading almost all of these exact same marketing buzzwords and hype ten years ago .
The only difference was that then the " amazing , revolutionary language " was called REBOL.Exact same business plan , as far as I can tell .
Exact same hyperbolic language .
Enough so that I wonder if the same copywriter did a search/replace on the old pamphlets .
It 's yet another moderately OK high-level language , but that comes in three versions : ( 1 ) Free ( of cost ) , but fairly crippled ( 2 ) Expensive ( 3 ) " Enterprise " , i.e .
REALLY expensive.And just like REBOL ten years ago , it promises " revolutionary " cross-platform support , while dropping or being slow to update the non-Windows versions.The linked blog/review of the language seemed to have comments solely from paid-shills .
The reviewer himself was interesting , but all the comment at foot read like almost certain astroturfuing.... gee , just like REBOL did back in the 1990s .
When you actually look at the " amazingly readable and compact " code... well , it looks a lot like AppleScript and a few other similar approaches to syntax .
But one thing I noticed in particular is that the " unbelievably short " code samples were about the same as the ones I 'd use in Python , or Ruby , or Perl , or AWK .
At least in length ; Python feels more readable to me... once you give up the silly conceit that Rev syntax is n't syntax because it kinda-sorta-a-little-bit reads like English .
Rev * is * shorter than Java or C + + , but that 's not exactly anything amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading almost all of these exact same marketing buzzwords and hype ten years ago.
The only difference was that then the "amazing, revolutionary language" was called REBOL.Exact same business plan, as far as I can tell.
Exact same hyperbolic language.
Enough so that I wonder if the same copywriter did a search/replace on the old pamphlets.
It's yet another moderately OK high-level language, but that comes in three versions:(1) Free (of cost), but fairly crippled(2) Expensive(3) "Enterprise", i.e.
REALLY expensive.And just like REBOL ten years ago, it promises "revolutionary" cross-platform support, while dropping or being slow to update the non-Windows versions.The linked blog/review of the language seemed to have comments solely from paid-shills.
The reviewer himself was interesting, but all the comment at foot read like almost certain astroturfuing.... gee, just like REBOL did back in the 1990s.
When you actually look at the "amazingly readable and compact" code... well, it looks a lot like AppleScript and a few other similar approaches to syntax.
But one thing I noticed in particular is that the "unbelievably short" code samples were about the same as the ones I'd use in Python, or Ruby, or Perl, or AWK.
At least in length; Python feels more readable to me... once you give up the silly conceit that Rev syntax isn't syntax because it kinda-sorta-a-little-bit reads like English.
Rev *is* shorter than Java or C++, but that's not exactly anything amazing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240096</id>
	<title>Boh</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1259234040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard" title="wikipedia.org">HyperCard</a> [wikipedia.org]. Never used it because Macs were too expensive and mostly monochromatic at the time. But I used something which was probably similar: INOVAtronics CanDo!
<p>
The problem with such solutions is that they are usually inflexible in terms of the applications you can make and often produce lower performing applications (i.e. use more memory and processor time). I still remember corporate suits droning off in business magazines in the 90s how Rapid Application Development tools would soon make programmers obsolete leading to a wondrous wave of cheap microserfs. RAD tools only had staying power in things like GUI design tools. This "Revolution 4.0" just seems like a hyped up "web 2.0" version of the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah HyperCard [ wikipedia.org ] .
Never used it because Macs were too expensive and mostly monochromatic at the time .
But I used something which was probably similar : INOVAtronics CanDo !
The problem with such solutions is that they are usually inflexible in terms of the applications you can make and often produce lower performing applications ( i.e .
use more memory and processor time ) .
I still remember corporate suits droning off in business magazines in the 90s how Rapid Application Development tools would soon make programmers obsolete leading to a wondrous wave of cheap microserfs .
RAD tools only had staying power in things like GUI design tools .
This " Revolution 4.0 " just seems like a hyped up " web 2.0 " version of the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah HyperCard [wikipedia.org].
Never used it because Macs were too expensive and mostly monochromatic at the time.
But I used something which was probably similar: INOVAtronics CanDo!
The problem with such solutions is that they are usually inflexible in terms of the applications you can make and often produce lower performing applications (i.e.
use more memory and processor time).
I still remember corporate suits droning off in business magazines in the 90s how Rapid Application Development tools would soon make programmers obsolete leading to a wondrous wave of cheap microserfs.
RAD tools only had staying power in things like GUI design tools.
This "Revolution 4.0" just seems like a hyped up "web 2.0" version of the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247612</id>
	<title>Re:90\% claim is fake</title>
	<author>kuzb</author>
	<datestamp>1259351460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in complete agreement with you.  A lot of what they claim is the "power" in this language is just a syntax turned up to maximum verbosity.  It's not even elegant.  It's just long and needlessly wordy.</p><p>Other languages read as English far better.  Ruby for example has a good balance between human readability and concise syntax.  The only thing revtalk is revolutionizing, is the amount of meaningless bloat we place in the source code.  The bottom line is that once you're past the cutesy cherry picked examples provided on their site, the syntax of the language does more to get in your way than it does to help you.</p><p>Since I was still looking for some kind of reason to like this language, I put all this aside and thought to myself "surely they must have something interesting for database interactions".  After all, most web applications rest on some kind of data storage, and since it's so important, they must have a way to make this easier to understand for novice programmers.  I found out quite rapidly that it implements nothing to ease the pain of talking to a SQL server.  No ORM or "better" way of describing SQL or stored data structures was to be found.</p><p>I think revtalk will develop some kind of following.  However, I don't think any experienced programmer would want to touch it after spending an hour messing with it.  Novice programmers who eventually wind up becoming intermediate/advanced programmers will probably drop it like a hot potato once they start to explore alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in complete agreement with you .
A lot of what they claim is the " power " in this language is just a syntax turned up to maximum verbosity .
It 's not even elegant .
It 's just long and needlessly wordy.Other languages read as English far better .
Ruby for example has a good balance between human readability and concise syntax .
The only thing revtalk is revolutionizing , is the amount of meaningless bloat we place in the source code .
The bottom line is that once you 're past the cutesy cherry picked examples provided on their site , the syntax of the language does more to get in your way than it does to help you.Since I was still looking for some kind of reason to like this language , I put all this aside and thought to myself " surely they must have something interesting for database interactions " .
After all , most web applications rest on some kind of data storage , and since it 's so important , they must have a way to make this easier to understand for novice programmers .
I found out quite rapidly that it implements nothing to ease the pain of talking to a SQL server .
No ORM or " better " way of describing SQL or stored data structures was to be found.I think revtalk will develop some kind of following .
However , I do n't think any experienced programmer would want to touch it after spending an hour messing with it .
Novice programmers who eventually wind up becoming intermediate/advanced programmers will probably drop it like a hot potato once they start to explore alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in complete agreement with you.
A lot of what they claim is the "power" in this language is just a syntax turned up to maximum verbosity.
It's not even elegant.
It's just long and needlessly wordy.Other languages read as English far better.
Ruby for example has a good balance between human readability and concise syntax.
The only thing revtalk is revolutionizing, is the amount of meaningless bloat we place in the source code.
The bottom line is that once you're past the cutesy cherry picked examples provided on their site, the syntax of the language does more to get in your way than it does to help you.Since I was still looking for some kind of reason to like this language, I put all this aside and thought to myself "surely they must have something interesting for database interactions".
After all, most web applications rest on some kind of data storage, and since it's so important, they must have a way to make this easier to understand for novice programmers.
I found out quite rapidly that it implements nothing to ease the pain of talking to a SQL server.
No ORM or "better" way of describing SQL or stored data structures was to be found.I think revtalk will develop some kind of following.
However, I don't think any experienced programmer would want to touch it after spending an hour messing with it.
Novice programmers who eventually wind up becoming intermediate/advanced programmers will probably drop it like a hot potato once they start to explore alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244466</id>
	<title>A program in natural language, functional style</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259325720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that should be pointed out is that structural editors actually make "programming in natural language" comparatively trivial.  For comparison, here's an implementation of insertion sort from such a system:</p><p>Let A be a set.  Then a list of elements of A is defined by the following cases:</p><ul> <li> the empty list</li><li> the list with x prepended to xs where x is an element of A and xs is a list of elements of A.</li></ul><p>Let A be a set.  Let x be an element of A.  Then the singleton list with x is a list of elements of A defined as the list with x prepended to the empty list.</p><p>Let A be a totally ordered set.  Let x be an element of A.  Let xs be a list of elements of A.  Then the list with x inserted into xs is a list of elements of A defined depending on xs as follows:</p><ul> <li> for the empty list, the singleton list with x.</li><li> for the list with x' prepended to xs',<ul> <li>if x is less than or equal to x', the list with x prepended to xs</li><li>otherwise, the list with x' prepended to the list with x inserted into xs'.</li></ul></li> </ul><p>Let A be a totally ordered set.  Let xs be a list of elements of A.  Then insertion sort applied to xs is a list of elements of A defined depending on xs as follows:</p><ul> <li> for the empty list, the empty list</li><li> for the list with x' prepended to xs', the list with x' inserted into insertion sort applied to xs'.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that should be pointed out is that structural editors actually make " programming in natural language " comparatively trivial .
For comparison , here 's an implementation of insertion sort from such a system : Let A be a set .
Then a list of elements of A is defined by the following cases : the empty list the list with x prepended to xs where x is an element of A and xs is a list of elements of A.Let A be a set .
Let x be an element of A. Then the singleton list with x is a list of elements of A defined as the list with x prepended to the empty list.Let A be a totally ordered set .
Let x be an element of A. Let xs be a list of elements of A. Then the list with x inserted into xs is a list of elements of A defined depending on xs as follows : for the empty list , the singleton list with x. for the list with x ' prepended to xs ' , if x is less than or equal to x ' , the list with x prepended to xsotherwise , the list with x ' prepended to the list with x inserted into xs' .
Let A be a totally ordered set .
Let xs be a list of elements of A. Then insertion sort applied to xs is a list of elements of A defined depending on xs as follows : for the empty list , the empty list for the list with x ' prepended to xs ' , the list with x ' inserted into insertion sort applied to xs' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that should be pointed out is that structural editors actually make "programming in natural language" comparatively trivial.
For comparison, here's an implementation of insertion sort from such a system:Let A be a set.
Then a list of elements of A is defined by the following cases:  the empty list the list with x prepended to xs where x is an element of A and xs is a list of elements of A.Let A be a set.
Let x be an element of A.  Then the singleton list with x is a list of elements of A defined as the list with x prepended to the empty list.Let A be a totally ordered set.
Let x be an element of A.  Let xs be a list of elements of A.  Then the list with x inserted into xs is a list of elements of A defined depending on xs as follows:  for the empty list, the singleton list with x. for the list with x' prepended to xs', if x is less than or equal to x', the list with x prepended to xsotherwise, the list with x' prepended to the list with x inserted into xs'.
Let A be a totally ordered set.
Let xs be a list of elements of A.  Then insertion sort applied to xs is a list of elements of A defined depending on xs as follows:  for the empty list, the empty list for the list with x' prepended to xs', the list with x' inserted into insertion sort applied to xs'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242526</id>
	<title>The real dumbing down...</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259256060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Learning only one language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Learning only one language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Learning only one language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30258184</id>
	<title>Exposure</title>
	<author>BigSes</author>
	<datestamp>1259419860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dont understand why anyone would think this is such a bad thing.  If it exposes a whole new group of people to programming, who is to say that they wont be willing to try some other, more difficult, language once they enjoy learning to program like this?  <p>
I understand alot of old schoolers who are incredible at C++, Assembly, or any of the myriad of difficult languages would scoff at things being so easy, but learning programming might not seem like such a daunting task to younger kids and newcomers.  Back in junior high school, I remember learning Basic, which was rather easy but didn't seem very robust.  It encouraged me to expand my horizons outward, more and more, with Pascal and the like.  I got reinterested in programming during college while taking a Visual Basic course, being amazed at what impressive things could be accomplished so easily since I was gone.</p><p>
I supposed many older schoolers would see this the same way as retired players would see Major League Baseball allowing steroids.  They didn't have to pay their dues learning a difficult and convoluted language while creating thousands of line of code to create something worthwhile.  Just like how MLB players on steroids didn't have to lay the foundation of hard work to earn their stripes.  The accomplishments would seem to come too easy.  Thats the way life is nowadays, thats all I have to say about that.  It happens in almost every facet of existence anymore, there are easier ways to do or learn anything invented everyday.  The important thing to do is keep your chin up, all you old schoolers, because you will always be a repository of knowledge when it comes to things such as proper programming structure, redundancy elimination, and the like. Not to mention that you'll have a different perspective on error elimination, efficiency, and process improvement.  Programming could become too easy, but they can't take your wisdom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont understand why anyone would think this is such a bad thing .
If it exposes a whole new group of people to programming , who is to say that they wont be willing to try some other , more difficult , language once they enjoy learning to program like this ?
I understand alot of old schoolers who are incredible at C + + , Assembly , or any of the myriad of difficult languages would scoff at things being so easy , but learning programming might not seem like such a daunting task to younger kids and newcomers .
Back in junior high school , I remember learning Basic , which was rather easy but did n't seem very robust .
It encouraged me to expand my horizons outward , more and more , with Pascal and the like .
I got reinterested in programming during college while taking a Visual Basic course , being amazed at what impressive things could be accomplished so easily since I was gone .
I supposed many older schoolers would see this the same way as retired players would see Major League Baseball allowing steroids .
They did n't have to pay their dues learning a difficult and convoluted language while creating thousands of line of code to create something worthwhile .
Just like how MLB players on steroids did n't have to lay the foundation of hard work to earn their stripes .
The accomplishments would seem to come too easy .
Thats the way life is nowadays , thats all I have to say about that .
It happens in almost every facet of existence anymore , there are easier ways to do or learn anything invented everyday .
The important thing to do is keep your chin up , all you old schoolers , because you will always be a repository of knowledge when it comes to things such as proper programming structure , redundancy elimination , and the like .
Not to mention that you 'll have a different perspective on error elimination , efficiency , and process improvement .
Programming could become too easy , but they ca n't take your wisdom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont understand why anyone would think this is such a bad thing.
If it exposes a whole new group of people to programming, who is to say that they wont be willing to try some other, more difficult, language once they enjoy learning to program like this?
I understand alot of old schoolers who are incredible at C++, Assembly, or any of the myriad of difficult languages would scoff at things being so easy, but learning programming might not seem like such a daunting task to younger kids and newcomers.
Back in junior high school, I remember learning Basic, which was rather easy but didn't seem very robust.
It encouraged me to expand my horizons outward, more and more, with Pascal and the like.
I got reinterested in programming during college while taking a Visual Basic course, being amazed at what impressive things could be accomplished so easily since I was gone.
I supposed many older schoolers would see this the same way as retired players would see Major League Baseball allowing steroids.
They didn't have to pay their dues learning a difficult and convoluted language while creating thousands of line of code to create something worthwhile.
Just like how MLB players on steroids didn't have to lay the foundation of hard work to earn their stripes.
The accomplishments would seem to come too easy.
Thats the way life is nowadays, thats all I have to say about that.
It happens in almost every facet of existence anymore, there are easier ways to do or learn anything invented everyday.
The important thing to do is keep your chin up, all you old schoolers, because you will always be a repository of knowledge when it comes to things such as proper programming structure, redundancy elimination, and the like.
Not to mention that you'll have a different perspective on error elimination, efficiency, and process improvement.
Programming could become too easy, but they can't take your wisdom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239944</id>
	<title>I could care less, it isn't truly FREE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wow a proprietary software development system? It's a new world boys there are plenty of solutions out there and just because these guys have marketing dollars doesn't mean people will take them up on it.</p><p>Unless it is open, it will die.</p><p>Remember all those old proprietary platforms? They are all but dead. It is a new age, get used it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wow a proprietary software development system ?
It 's a new world boys there are plenty of solutions out there and just because these guys have marketing dollars does n't mean people will take them up on it.Unless it is open , it will die.Remember all those old proprietary platforms ?
They are all but dead .
It is a new age , get used it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wow a proprietary software development system?
It's a new world boys there are plenty of solutions out there and just because these guys have marketing dollars doesn't mean people will take them up on it.Unless it is open, it will die.Remember all those old proprietary platforms?
They are all but dead.
It is a new age, get used it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240020</id>
	<title>Re:A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>mustafap</author>
	<datestamp>1259233500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;the more human readable and dummy proof</p><p>Actually those two are exclusive, not inclusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the more human readable and dummy proofActually those two are exclusive , not inclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;the more human readable and dummy proofActually those two are exclusive, not inclusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243764</id>
	<title>And if guns had health and safety warnings...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with typing rm -rf * isn't that the user doesn't know what it means. The problem is that they believe that they want to remove the contents of all folders... but in some cases, later realise that is not what they should have done. Making the command easier to read won't get rid of those mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with typing rm -rf * is n't that the user does n't know what it means .
The problem is that they believe that they want to remove the contents of all folders... but in some cases , later realise that is not what they should have done .
Making the command easier to read wo n't get rid of those mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with typing rm -rf * isn't that the user doesn't know what it means.
The problem is that they believe that they want to remove the contents of all folders... but in some cases, later realise that is not what they should have done.
Making the command easier to read won't get rid of those mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245374</id>
	<title>I can only go by my own experience --</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1259336940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had very good higher math from highschool and from a college level math course years ago. But no programming background, training, etc.</p><p>Tried to lean Java as my first stab at programming. Let's just say, I learned enough to create endless exception errors (or seemingly so).</p><p>Then, back tracked a bit, taught myself JavaScript, for where I was knowledge-wise, it was the proper entrance point.</p><p>From there, taught myself C, and while I did that, I even ventured into learning a bit about assembly (which, in hindsight, helped broaden my understanding of what my C code was doing that the lowest levels). Then, re-visited Java with much better results and also learned some C++ (but I am still very much a fledgling C++ coder).</p><p>The problem, as I see it, isn't the need to dumb programming down, there are really two tracks (maybe more) here:</p><p>1. Programming for those that want to stay away from the lowest levels of computer processing and<br>2. Those who want to code as close to bare metal as possible for speed, etc.</p><p>Both are needed, in different situations. And, some in "1", as they gain more knowledge, will gravitate to "2".</p><p>It is really a matter of personal interest, what problems the programmer is trying to solve and that sort of thing.</p><p>From my own experience (briefly noted above), the basics, what is happening with the system when you code a particular thing, helped me really evaluate what I was trying to do with a particular function or piece of code, which I then used to improve past code I had written and improved my programs for new projects I tackled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had very good higher math from highschool and from a college level math course years ago .
But no programming background , training , etc.Tried to lean Java as my first stab at programming .
Let 's just say , I learned enough to create endless exception errors ( or seemingly so ) .Then , back tracked a bit , taught myself JavaScript , for where I was knowledge-wise , it was the proper entrance point.From there , taught myself C , and while I did that , I even ventured into learning a bit about assembly ( which , in hindsight , helped broaden my understanding of what my C code was doing that the lowest levels ) .
Then , re-visited Java with much better results and also learned some C + + ( but I am still very much a fledgling C + + coder ) .The problem , as I see it , is n't the need to dumb programming down , there are really two tracks ( maybe more ) here : 1 .
Programming for those that want to stay away from the lowest levels of computer processing and2 .
Those who want to code as close to bare metal as possible for speed , etc.Both are needed , in different situations .
And , some in " 1 " , as they gain more knowledge , will gravitate to " 2 " .It is really a matter of personal interest , what problems the programmer is trying to solve and that sort of thing.From my own experience ( briefly noted above ) , the basics , what is happening with the system when you code a particular thing , helped me really evaluate what I was trying to do with a particular function or piece of code , which I then used to improve past code I had written and improved my programs for new projects I tackled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had very good higher math from highschool and from a college level math course years ago.
But no programming background, training, etc.Tried to lean Java as my first stab at programming.
Let's just say, I learned enough to create endless exception errors (or seemingly so).Then, back tracked a bit, taught myself JavaScript, for where I was knowledge-wise, it was the proper entrance point.From there, taught myself C, and while I did that, I even ventured into learning a bit about assembly (which, in hindsight, helped broaden my understanding of what my C code was doing that the lowest levels).
Then, re-visited Java with much better results and also learned some C++ (but I am still very much a fledgling C++ coder).The problem, as I see it, isn't the need to dumb programming down, there are really two tracks (maybe more) here:1.
Programming for those that want to stay away from the lowest levels of computer processing and2.
Those who want to code as close to bare metal as possible for speed, etc.Both are needed, in different situations.
And, some in "1", as they gain more knowledge, will gravitate to "2".It is really a matter of personal interest, what problems the programmer is trying to solve and that sort of thing.From my own experience (briefly noted above), the basics, what is happening with the system when you code a particular thing, helped me really evaluate what I was trying to do with a particular function or piece of code, which I then used to improve past code I had written and improved my programs for new projects I tackled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244098</id>
	<title>Stackware like RunRev is actually pretty cool</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1259319840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once built a custom vertical market <a href="http://druckfarbendoc.de/go/kalkulator/" title="druckfarbendoc.de">cross-plattform desktop application</a> [druckfarbendoc.de] in RunRev. The functions of the little app where speced to the last detail and the user interface was designed and drawn out down to the last pixel, Font requirements included. Coaxing the IDE into not sucking by adding 3rd party extensions and such was a bit of a hassle, but all in all the project went very well.</p><p>We used RunRev 2.x with various 3rd party extensions including a font-compiling plugin (which in the end didn't work) and a more IDE-like extension of the RunRev enviroment that eased coding.</p><p>The visual and object oriented style of building apps in stackware is pretty cool and can be insanely fast, fluent, concurrent and bugsafe. You get concurrent from the first minute on, because Stackware usually uses the DMI approach, which is pretty cool in itself. The way the runtime integrated with it's own <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct\_manipulation\_interface" title="wikipedia.org">DMI</a> [wikipedia.org] (Direct Manipulation Interface) and compiles it's current state into the deployable app is something one has to get used to, but it actually is OOP in its purest form, if you get the hang of it. This sort of developement is a direct descendant of the Smalltalk way of doing things and makes the Java/.Net way look like ancient weedy spagetti-basic.</p><p>Yet RunRev uses a PL called TransScript, something like a bizar resemblence of SQL and Lingo that tries to emulate english for dummies. An attempt which, of course, doesn't work. That's the biggest gripe I have about these commercial types of stackware. Building a new PL and throwing out the junk we've got from C and it's ancestors is a good thing, but putting in SQLs failiures of a end-user-interface language is bad and the results are usually accordingly. The one FOSS project that aimes in a stackware direction that I know of is <a href="http://squeak.org/" title="squeak.org">Squeak</a> [squeak.org] and it uses Smalltalk, which probably is a way better to go.</p><p>Any way you look at it, stackware and visual development has a lot going for it if it is done right.<br>It actually kicks all other dev-methods imaged by Eclipse, Java,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, [fill in generic Big-Fat-Appstack here] and whatnot up and down the street, to be honest. I'm not suprised they claim to have saved half a million in costs, and I actually believe it's true.</p><p>My 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once built a custom vertical market cross-plattform desktop application [ druckfarbendoc.de ] in RunRev .
The functions of the little app where speced to the last detail and the user interface was designed and drawn out down to the last pixel , Font requirements included .
Coaxing the IDE into not sucking by adding 3rd party extensions and such was a bit of a hassle , but all in all the project went very well.We used RunRev 2.x with various 3rd party extensions including a font-compiling plugin ( which in the end did n't work ) and a more IDE-like extension of the RunRev enviroment that eased coding.The visual and object oriented style of building apps in stackware is pretty cool and can be insanely fast , fluent , concurrent and bugsafe .
You get concurrent from the first minute on , because Stackware usually uses the DMI approach , which is pretty cool in itself .
The way the runtime integrated with it 's own DMI [ wikipedia.org ] ( Direct Manipulation Interface ) and compiles it 's current state into the deployable app is something one has to get used to , but it actually is OOP in its purest form , if you get the hang of it .
This sort of developement is a direct descendant of the Smalltalk way of doing things and makes the Java/.Net way look like ancient weedy spagetti-basic.Yet RunRev uses a PL called TransScript , something like a bizar resemblence of SQL and Lingo that tries to emulate english for dummies .
An attempt which , of course , does n't work .
That 's the biggest gripe I have about these commercial types of stackware .
Building a new PL and throwing out the junk we 've got from C and it 's ancestors is a good thing , but putting in SQLs failiures of a end-user-interface language is bad and the results are usually accordingly .
The one FOSS project that aimes in a stackware direction that I know of is Squeak [ squeak.org ] and it uses Smalltalk , which probably is a way better to go.Any way you look at it , stackware and visual development has a lot going for it if it is done right.It actually kicks all other dev-methods imaged by Eclipse , Java , .Net , [ fill in generic Big-Fat-Appstack here ] and whatnot up and down the street , to be honest .
I 'm not suprised they claim to have saved half a million in costs , and I actually believe it 's true.My 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once built a custom vertical market cross-plattform desktop application [druckfarbendoc.de] in RunRev.
The functions of the little app where speced to the last detail and the user interface was designed and drawn out down to the last pixel, Font requirements included.
Coaxing the IDE into not sucking by adding 3rd party extensions and such was a bit of a hassle, but all in all the project went very well.We used RunRev 2.x with various 3rd party extensions including a font-compiling plugin (which in the end didn't work) and a more IDE-like extension of the RunRev enviroment that eased coding.The visual and object oriented style of building apps in stackware is pretty cool and can be insanely fast, fluent, concurrent and bugsafe.
You get concurrent from the first minute on, because Stackware usually uses the DMI approach, which is pretty cool in itself.
The way the runtime integrated with it's own DMI [wikipedia.org] (Direct Manipulation Interface) and compiles it's current state into the deployable app is something one has to get used to, but it actually is OOP in its purest form, if you get the hang of it.
This sort of developement is a direct descendant of the Smalltalk way of doing things and makes the Java/.Net way look like ancient weedy spagetti-basic.Yet RunRev uses a PL called TransScript, something like a bizar resemblence of SQL and Lingo that tries to emulate english for dummies.
An attempt which, of course, doesn't work.
That's the biggest gripe I have about these commercial types of stackware.
Building a new PL and throwing out the junk we've got from C and it's ancestors is a good thing, but putting in SQLs failiures of a end-user-interface language is bad and the results are usually accordingly.
The one FOSS project that aimes in a stackware direction that I know of is Squeak [squeak.org] and it uses Smalltalk, which probably is a way better to go.Any way you look at it, stackware and visual development has a lot going for it if it is done right.It actually kicks all other dev-methods imaged by Eclipse, Java, .Net, [fill in generic Big-Fat-Appstack here] and whatnot up and down the street, to be honest.
I'm not suprised they claim to have saved half a million in costs, and I actually believe it's true.My 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240192</id>
	<title>Fell short</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1259234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can't get <a href="http://lolcode.com/" title="lolcode.com" rel="nofollow">dumber than this.</a> [lolcode.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't get dumber than this .
[ lolcode.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't get dumber than this.
[lolcode.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241742</id>
	<title>Anyone acutally look at rev4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259247660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its still programing like COBAL with some gui glued on.<br>The plugin they wanted you to install killed my backup dev server and had to wipe it.<br>I dont think its gonna catch on because of the overhead for end users.<br>Picutre this... "Wellcome to Slashdot install this plugin to view the site".<br>I dont think you would if youve never been to slashdot before</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its still programing like COBAL with some gui glued on.The plugin they wanted you to install killed my backup dev server and had to wipe it.I dont think its gon na catch on because of the overhead for end users.Picutre this... " Wellcome to Slashdot install this plugin to view the site " .I dont think you would if youve never been to slashdot before</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its still programing like COBAL with some gui glued on.The plugin they wanted you to install killed my backup dev server and had to wipe it.I dont think its gonna catch on because of the overhead for end users.Picutre this... "Wellcome to Slashdot install this plugin to view the site".I dont think you would if youve never been to slashdot before</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240284</id>
	<title>The real issue...</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1259235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real issue isn't how easy a languages command structure is, because memorizing function calls and syntax is easy. The real problem, IMHO, is people... People are not taught to think analytically and structurally. That is the problem. How can you code without analytical skills. When I learned programming 10 years ago I was taught to draw it out on paper.. Flow chart style. If the flow chart starts getting to big you need to split off a function, eventually creating a rough sketch of how your program will work. People with analytical skills can learn anything if explained how something works.</p><p>On another note, I don't want programming languages getting to the point where its like speaking english... Imagine the code... *shudder*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue is n't how easy a languages command structure is , because memorizing function calls and syntax is easy .
The real problem , IMHO , is people... People are not taught to think analytically and structurally .
That is the problem .
How can you code without analytical skills .
When I learned programming 10 years ago I was taught to draw it out on paper.. Flow chart style .
If the flow chart starts getting to big you need to split off a function , eventually creating a rough sketch of how your program will work .
People with analytical skills can learn anything if explained how something works.On another note , I do n't want programming languages getting to the point where its like speaking english... Imagine the code... * shudder *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue isn't how easy a languages command structure is, because memorizing function calls and syntax is easy.
The real problem, IMHO, is people... People are not taught to think analytically and structurally.
That is the problem.
How can you code without analytical skills.
When I learned programming 10 years ago I was taught to draw it out on paper.. Flow chart style.
If the flow chart starts getting to big you need to split off a function, eventually creating a rough sketch of how your program will work.
People with analytical skills can learn anything if explained how something works.On another note, I don't want programming languages getting to the point where its like speaking english... Imagine the code... *shudder*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30248308</id>
	<title>Re:Submarine article</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1259312820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Paul Graham wrote a very informative article about "news stories" like this one many years ago.</i></p><p>Fun! Your post led me to actually read the piece. It is awesome. Let's break it down.</p><p><i>Does 10x faster development dumb down programming?</i></p><p>10x faster -- catches bean counters eyes.</p><p>dumb down programming -- establishes the opposition as emotionally based.</p><p><i>Posted by Adrian Bridgwater</i></p><p>Fair enough. Written by Runtime Revolution.</p><p><i>If you're in the business of reviewing software application development news, which coincidentally I am, then tenfold programming productivity claims tend to either raise my eyebrows or raise my hackles in equal measure.</i></p><p>I am an expert. This is my business. And I am objective. I don't just blindly swallow this snake oil. I frequently get angry (for example; if they don't pay me to post a puff piece).</p><p><i>Software development company Runtime Revolution Ltd has this week introduced its Revolution 4.0 product for application and web development - and it's available in a free version too.</i></p><p>blah blah blah, and you can get it for free.</p><p><i>This outfit doesn't seem to mess about when it comes to making big claims. The company's product uses an English syntax that requires (and I quote) '90-per cent less code than traditional languages'. I suppose that adds up, 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster. But it is of any substance?</i></p><p>See? It's simple math. 90\% less code equals ten times faster. Any idiot (particularly our target idiots) could understand this.</p><p><i>Runtime Revolution says that its Rev programming language descends from natural-language technologies such as Apple's HyperCard and, "Empowers people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications," and that this, "Enables software construction for everyone."</i></p><p>It started at Apple! Apple! The company that makes the Jesus Phone! And it empowers and enables!</p><p><i>Oooh, sounds dangerous doesn't it? Surely not everyone has the mind of a software programmer and the algorithmic logic that the application developer has command of is the foundation of the creativity and power that they themselves wield.</i></p><p>But those arrogant software engineers will claim that you need logic and thought. They don't think you are as smart as them. They think you are stupid. And they are the only ones who will be claiming you can't do this.</p><p><i>Of course I'm being deliberately difficult here,...</i></p><p>I am hard bitten and critical. I am being tough on them. I am not playing slow pitch softball, or merely posting a piece crafted by their PR department to look as though it was a personal blog post.</p><p><i>there are instances in modern business when a simple application may be all that's needed and hiring a full-blown development professional might be out of budgetary limits....</i></p><p>Those arrogant software engineers claim this stuff is hard, but you already know what you want, and it is simple. And they're so expensive -- why they cost nearly half what a middle manager with an associates degree costs.</p><p><i>Further, there are arguments for creating customised tools inside the business by the people that will use them....</i></p><p>You know what you want, and those damned software engineers refuse to give it to you even though it is easy.</p><p><i>I know these arguments will not water with requirements management gurus who already have a hard enough time getting customers to calm down and stop asking for stupid functionalities, but there you go.</i></p><p>They don't give you what you want because they are arrogant and refuse to listen to you. It has nothing to do with whether it is possible, only their arrogance and disobedience.</p><p><i>"The last two years have seen the most impressive growth in our business, pointing to a correlation between a tough global economy and the resourcefulness of professionals who need to do more with less," said Kevin Miller, RunRev CEO.</i></p><p>You are resourceful and need to do more with less in a tough global economy. And we've been growing impressively because of sharp folks like you.</p><p><i>One might reasonably hope that this product inspires students in the appropriate way and gets them more interested in programming. If they can see real functionality happening sooner rather than later, then this may be the case....</i></p><p>Why, this may even rock the very foundations of computer science education! Remember that programming class you had to take in college, and how hard it was? It was the syntax that made it hard.</p><p><i>It does however jar with the fact that computer science students have been happy to chip away at the command line for most of the last half century keen to learn their trade from scratch.</i></p><p>These software engineers who think they're so much more advanced than you, with their black screens with hundreds of lines of text and nary a spreadsheet chart in site are just slaves to archaic tradition!</p><p><i>Anyway, should you wish to try it...</i></p><p>now that I've spent this entire piece stroking your ego...</p><p><i>Rev 4.0 is offered in three editions: the free revMedia edition, the revStudio edition which features 100 additional commands and keywords for professional functionality and revEnterprise with its enhanced security features.</i></p><p>You can get it for free. Free! FREE! And then you can buy the extra commands and security later, after you've run through our toy examples and seen that you can actually write toy code. Once you see that you can solve our toy problems by following our step by step instructions, and are in the full heat of having suddenly realized that you are just as smart as those arrogant programmers, you just need to buy the extra 100 commands to do everything your mind can imagine. Oh, and if you need security, we sell that too (it's the ungodly expensive package, but you only need it if you need to keep your data secure).</p><p>Brilliant! Author! Author!</p><p>Seriously -- holy crap is that well written. That PR person deserves a raise. And to be dragged through the town square behind a team of chargers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paul Graham wrote a very informative article about " news stories " like this one many years ago.Fun !
Your post led me to actually read the piece .
It is awesome .
Let 's break it down.Does 10x faster development dumb down programming ? 10x faster -- catches bean counters eyes.dumb down programming -- establishes the opposition as emotionally based.Posted by Adrian BridgwaterFair enough .
Written by Runtime Revolution.If you 're in the business of reviewing software application development news , which coincidentally I am , then tenfold programming productivity claims tend to either raise my eyebrows or raise my hackles in equal measure.I am an expert .
This is my business .
And I am objective .
I do n't just blindly swallow this snake oil .
I frequently get angry ( for example ; if they do n't pay me to post a puff piece ) .Software development company Runtime Revolution Ltd has this week introduced its Revolution 4.0 product for application and web development - and it 's available in a free version too.blah blah blah , and you can get it for free.This outfit does n't seem to mess about when it comes to making big claims .
The company 's product uses an English syntax that requires ( and I quote ) '90-per cent less code than traditional languages' .
I suppose that adds up , 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster .
But it is of any substance ? See ?
It 's simple math .
90 \ % less code equals ten times faster .
Any idiot ( particularly our target idiots ) could understand this.Runtime Revolution says that its Rev programming language descends from natural-language technologies such as Apple 's HyperCard and , " Empowers people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications , " and that this , " Enables software construction for everyone .
" It started at Apple !
Apple ! The company that makes the Jesus Phone !
And it empowers and enables ! Oooh , sounds dangerous does n't it ?
Surely not everyone has the mind of a software programmer and the algorithmic logic that the application developer has command of is the foundation of the creativity and power that they themselves wield.But those arrogant software engineers will claim that you need logic and thought .
They do n't think you are as smart as them .
They think you are stupid .
And they are the only ones who will be claiming you ca n't do this.Of course I 'm being deliberately difficult here,...I am hard bitten and critical .
I am being tough on them .
I am not playing slow pitch softball , or merely posting a piece crafted by their PR department to look as though it was a personal blog post.there are instances in modern business when a simple application may be all that 's needed and hiring a full-blown development professional might be out of budgetary limits....Those arrogant software engineers claim this stuff is hard , but you already know what you want , and it is simple .
And they 're so expensive -- why they cost nearly half what a middle manager with an associates degree costs.Further , there are arguments for creating customised tools inside the business by the people that will use them....You know what you want , and those damned software engineers refuse to give it to you even though it is easy.I know these arguments will not water with requirements management gurus who already have a hard enough time getting customers to calm down and stop asking for stupid functionalities , but there you go.They do n't give you what you want because they are arrogant and refuse to listen to you .
It has nothing to do with whether it is possible , only their arrogance and disobedience .
" The last two years have seen the most impressive growth in our business , pointing to a correlation between a tough global economy and the resourcefulness of professionals who need to do more with less , " said Kevin Miller , RunRev CEO.You are resourceful and need to do more with less in a tough global economy .
And we 've been growing impressively because of sharp folks like you.One might reasonably hope that this product inspires students in the appropriate way and gets them more interested in programming .
If they can see real functionality happening sooner rather than later , then this may be the case....Why , this may even rock the very foundations of computer science education !
Remember that programming class you had to take in college , and how hard it was ?
It was the syntax that made it hard.It does however jar with the fact that computer science students have been happy to chip away at the command line for most of the last half century keen to learn their trade from scratch.These software engineers who think they 're so much more advanced than you , with their black screens with hundreds of lines of text and nary a spreadsheet chart in site are just slaves to archaic tradition ! Anyway , should you wish to try it...now that I 've spent this entire piece stroking your ego...Rev 4.0 is offered in three editions : the free revMedia edition , the revStudio edition which features 100 additional commands and keywords for professional functionality and revEnterprise with its enhanced security features.You can get it for free .
Free ! FREE !
And then you can buy the extra commands and security later , after you 've run through our toy examples and seen that you can actually write toy code .
Once you see that you can solve our toy problems by following our step by step instructions , and are in the full heat of having suddenly realized that you are just as smart as those arrogant programmers , you just need to buy the extra 100 commands to do everything your mind can imagine .
Oh , and if you need security , we sell that too ( it 's the ungodly expensive package , but you only need it if you need to keep your data secure ) .Brilliant !
Author ! Author ! Seriously -- holy crap is that well written .
That PR person deserves a raise .
And to be dragged through the town square behind a team of chargers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paul Graham wrote a very informative article about "news stories" like this one many years ago.Fun!
Your post led me to actually read the piece.
It is awesome.
Let's break it down.Does 10x faster development dumb down programming?10x faster -- catches bean counters eyes.dumb down programming -- establishes the opposition as emotionally based.Posted by Adrian BridgwaterFair enough.
Written by Runtime Revolution.If you're in the business of reviewing software application development news, which coincidentally I am, then tenfold programming productivity claims tend to either raise my eyebrows or raise my hackles in equal measure.I am an expert.
This is my business.
And I am objective.
I don't just blindly swallow this snake oil.
I frequently get angry (for example; if they don't pay me to post a puff piece).Software development company Runtime Revolution Ltd has this week introduced its Revolution 4.0 product for application and web development - and it's available in a free version too.blah blah blah, and you can get it for free.This outfit doesn't seem to mess about when it comes to making big claims.
The company's product uses an English syntax that requires (and I quote) '90-per cent less code than traditional languages'.
I suppose that adds up, 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster.
But it is of any substance?See?
It's simple math.
90\% less code equals ten times faster.
Any idiot (particularly our target idiots) could understand this.Runtime Revolution says that its Rev programming language descends from natural-language technologies such as Apple's HyperCard and, "Empowers people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications," and that this, "Enables software construction for everyone.
"It started at Apple!
Apple! The company that makes the Jesus Phone!
And it empowers and enables!Oooh, sounds dangerous doesn't it?
Surely not everyone has the mind of a software programmer and the algorithmic logic that the application developer has command of is the foundation of the creativity and power that they themselves wield.But those arrogant software engineers will claim that you need logic and thought.
They don't think you are as smart as them.
They think you are stupid.
And they are the only ones who will be claiming you can't do this.Of course I'm being deliberately difficult here,...I am hard bitten and critical.
I am being tough on them.
I am not playing slow pitch softball, or merely posting a piece crafted by their PR department to look as though it was a personal blog post.there are instances in modern business when a simple application may be all that's needed and hiring a full-blown development professional might be out of budgetary limits....Those arrogant software engineers claim this stuff is hard, but you already know what you want, and it is simple.
And they're so expensive -- why they cost nearly half what a middle manager with an associates degree costs.Further, there are arguments for creating customised tools inside the business by the people that will use them....You know what you want, and those damned software engineers refuse to give it to you even though it is easy.I know these arguments will not water with requirements management gurus who already have a hard enough time getting customers to calm down and stop asking for stupid functionalities, but there you go.They don't give you what you want because they are arrogant and refuse to listen to you.
It has nothing to do with whether it is possible, only their arrogance and disobedience.
"The last two years have seen the most impressive growth in our business, pointing to a correlation between a tough global economy and the resourcefulness of professionals who need to do more with less," said Kevin Miller, RunRev CEO.You are resourceful and need to do more with less in a tough global economy.
And we've been growing impressively because of sharp folks like you.One might reasonably hope that this product inspires students in the appropriate way and gets them more interested in programming.
If they can see real functionality happening sooner rather than later, then this may be the case....Why, this may even rock the very foundations of computer science education!
Remember that programming class you had to take in college, and how hard it was?
It was the syntax that made it hard.It does however jar with the fact that computer science students have been happy to chip away at the command line for most of the last half century keen to learn their trade from scratch.These software engineers who think they're so much more advanced than you, with their black screens with hundreds of lines of text and nary a spreadsheet chart in site are just slaves to archaic tradition!Anyway, should you wish to try it...now that I've spent this entire piece stroking your ego...Rev 4.0 is offered in three editions: the free revMedia edition, the revStudio edition which features 100 additional commands and keywords for professional functionality and revEnterprise with its enhanced security features.You can get it for free.
Free! FREE!
And then you can buy the extra commands and security later, after you've run through our toy examples and seen that you can actually write toy code.
Once you see that you can solve our toy problems by following our step by step instructions, and are in the full heat of having suddenly realized that you are just as smart as those arrogant programmers, you just need to buy the extra 100 commands to do everything your mind can imagine.
Oh, and if you need security, we sell that too (it's the ungodly expensive package, but you only need it if you need to keep your data secure).Brilliant!
Author! Author!Seriously -- holy crap is that well written.
That PR person deserves a raise.
And to be dragged through the town square behind a team of chargers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241766</id>
	<title>dBase / Clipper</title>
	<author>daver\_au</author>
	<datestamp>1259247960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow Deja Vu.<br>I remember the xBase (dBase / Clipper etc) languages being touted as the programming solution for non programmers. Programmers would be out of jobs, everyone would be writing their own applications. My first programming job when I left University was writing business applications in Clipper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow Deja Vu.I remember the xBase ( dBase / Clipper etc ) languages being touted as the programming solution for non programmers .
Programmers would be out of jobs , everyone would be writing their own applications .
My first programming job when I left University was writing business applications in Clipper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow Deja Vu.I remember the xBase (dBase / Clipper etc) languages being touted as the programming solution for non programmers.
Programmers would be out of jobs, everyone would be writing their own applications.
My first programming job when I left University was writing business applications in Clipper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240610</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, yet exaggerated...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They really do push it. Comments, unnecessary code, helper functions, unused namespace inclusions. Here is the result of two minutes refactoring of the C# code example they provide:<br><i><br>class Program<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; static void Main(string[] args)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; string[] t\_quote\_row = new System.Net.WebClient().DownloadString(@"http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L").Split('\n')[1].Split(',');<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; System.Console.WriteLine(t\_quote\_row[t\_quote\_row.Length - 1]);<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}<br></i><br>From 42 lines down to 8. Its obviously a contrived example but whatever, all I did was remove anything unnecessary. I could shave two more lines by moving the open brace to the line above on lines 1 and 3, and another line by not being pedantic about getting the last entry from the quote row (the original example code just indexes in with a magic number).</p><p>I cant imagine coding using that language. It seem so imprecise, forced to make assumptions about what you want. The line of revTalk they provide to do the above work is:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <i>get the last item of line 2 of URL "http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L"</i></p><p>How does it know to treat the string as CSV? I can think of a number of ways it could easily guess this like checking the content encoding, but the point is that I can't immediately see that it <i>is</i> guessing. What if I want the last character in the string, or the string is tab (or some other character) delimited?</p><p>Gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about debugging it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They really do push it .
Comments , unnecessary code , helper functions , unused namespace inclusions .
Here is the result of two minutes refactoring of the C # code example they provide : class Program {     static void Main ( string [ ] args )     {         string [ ] t \ _quote \ _row = new System.Net.WebClient ( ) .DownloadString ( @ " http : //ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv ? s = RBS.L " ) .Split ( ' \ n ' ) [ 1 ] .Split ( ', ' ) ;         System.Console.WriteLine ( t \ _quote \ _row [ t \ _quote \ _row.Length - 1 ] ) ;     } } From 42 lines down to 8 .
Its obviously a contrived example but whatever , all I did was remove anything unnecessary .
I could shave two more lines by moving the open brace to the line above on lines 1 and 3 , and another line by not being pedantic about getting the last entry from the quote row ( the original example code just indexes in with a magic number ) .I cant imagine coding using that language .
It seem so imprecise , forced to make assumptions about what you want .
The line of revTalk they provide to do the above work is :     get the last item of line 2 of URL " http : //ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv ? s = RBS.L " How does it know to treat the string as CSV ?
I can think of a number of ways it could easily guess this like checking the content encoding , but the point is that I ca n't immediately see that it is guessing .
What if I want the last character in the string , or the string is tab ( or some other character ) delimited ? Gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about debugging it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really do push it.
Comments, unnecessary code, helper functions, unused namespace inclusions.
Here is the result of two minutes refactoring of the C# code example they provide:class Program{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        string[] t\_quote\_row = new System.Net.WebClient().DownloadString(@"http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L").Split('\n')[1].Split(',');
        System.Console.WriteLine(t\_quote\_row[t\_quote\_row.Length - 1]);
    }}From 42 lines down to 8.
Its obviously a contrived example but whatever, all I did was remove anything unnecessary.
I could shave two more lines by moving the open brace to the line above on lines 1 and 3, and another line by not being pedantic about getting the last entry from the quote row (the original example code just indexes in with a magic number).I cant imagine coding using that language.
It seem so imprecise, forced to make assumptions about what you want.
The line of revTalk they provide to do the above work is:
    get the last item of line 2 of URL "http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=RBS.L"How does it know to treat the string as CSV?
I can think of a number of ways it could easily guess this like checking the content encoding, but the point is that I can't immediately see that it is guessing.
What if I want the last character in the string, or the string is tab (or some other character) delimited?Gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about debugging it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240308</id>
	<title>I'm not convinced at all</title>
	<author>Mutatis Mutandis</author>
	<datestamp>1259235960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the tutorials; for example the <a href="http://lessons.runrev.com/spaces/lessons/buckets/784/lessons/7407-File-Input-Output" title="runrev.com">File I/O</a> [runrev.com] code. I concede that to the average person without any programming education, this may <em>look</em> simpler than its C++ or Python counterpart, but <em>is</em> this syntax really simpler? I think not! On contrary this bit would be easier to code, with a rather lower risk of time-consuming compile errors, in many traditional languages.</p><p>I've seen enough attempts to "dumb down" computer languages for people whose computer programming examination only asked: "Which of the following three is not a valid BASIC keyword: (a) PRINT (b) GOTO (c) TERMINATE?" (I kid you not -- when I was at university, this was the level of knowledge expected from bachelor's students in, if I remember correctly, veterinary medicine.) Generally these languages did not succeed in making computer programming easier; they only succeeded in making it look superficially easier. The threshold appears lower for the uninitiated, but after the first three days there is no advantage and you're stuck with a stupid syntax.</p><p>The real choice, as far as I can tell, is between a "minimalist" design of a language which provides only those features that a developer is expected to really need, and a "maximalist" design that provides the extra features a programmer might like to have to save him some time and make code look more elegant. The pair Java and C#, despite their similarities in syntax, exemplify the contrasting approaches very well. Personally, having seen how even professional programmers can mess up their exception handling and mismanage their dependencies, I am firmly minimalist. Never mind time saved in writing code, that barely matters. What matters is time saved in code reviewing and debugging, and that is nearly always easier in a minimalist language.</p><p>That said, I hope there would be a market for a good, simple language suitable for automation purposes: Something that is suitable for anything from writing macros in a text editor to controlling a complicated robot, for which people now usually reinvent the wheel -- generally producing something roughly triangular with an off-set axle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the tutorials ; for example the File I/O [ runrev.com ] code .
I concede that to the average person without any programming education , this may look simpler than its C + + or Python counterpart , but is this syntax really simpler ?
I think not !
On contrary this bit would be easier to code , with a rather lower risk of time-consuming compile errors , in many traditional languages.I 've seen enough attempts to " dumb down " computer languages for people whose computer programming examination only asked : " Which of the following three is not a valid BASIC keyword : ( a ) PRINT ( b ) GOTO ( c ) TERMINATE ?
" ( I kid you not -- when I was at university , this was the level of knowledge expected from bachelor 's students in , if I remember correctly , veterinary medicine .
) Generally these languages did not succeed in making computer programming easier ; they only succeeded in making it look superficially easier .
The threshold appears lower for the uninitiated , but after the first three days there is no advantage and you 're stuck with a stupid syntax.The real choice , as far as I can tell , is between a " minimalist " design of a language which provides only those features that a developer is expected to really need , and a " maximalist " design that provides the extra features a programmer might like to have to save him some time and make code look more elegant .
The pair Java and C # , despite their similarities in syntax , exemplify the contrasting approaches very well .
Personally , having seen how even professional programmers can mess up their exception handling and mismanage their dependencies , I am firmly minimalist .
Never mind time saved in writing code , that barely matters .
What matters is time saved in code reviewing and debugging , and that is nearly always easier in a minimalist language.That said , I hope there would be a market for a good , simple language suitable for automation purposes : Something that is suitable for anything from writing macros in a text editor to controlling a complicated robot , for which people now usually reinvent the wheel -- generally producing something roughly triangular with an off-set axle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the tutorials; for example the File I/O [runrev.com] code.
I concede that to the average person without any programming education, this may look simpler than its C++ or Python counterpart, but is this syntax really simpler?
I think not!
On contrary this bit would be easier to code, with a rather lower risk of time-consuming compile errors, in many traditional languages.I've seen enough attempts to "dumb down" computer languages for people whose computer programming examination only asked: "Which of the following three is not a valid BASIC keyword: (a) PRINT (b) GOTO (c) TERMINATE?
" (I kid you not -- when I was at university, this was the level of knowledge expected from bachelor's students in, if I remember correctly, veterinary medicine.
) Generally these languages did not succeed in making computer programming easier; they only succeeded in making it look superficially easier.
The threshold appears lower for the uninitiated, but after the first three days there is no advantage and you're stuck with a stupid syntax.The real choice, as far as I can tell, is between a "minimalist" design of a language which provides only those features that a developer is expected to really need, and a "maximalist" design that provides the extra features a programmer might like to have to save him some time and make code look more elegant.
The pair Java and C#, despite their similarities in syntax, exemplify the contrasting approaches very well.
Personally, having seen how even professional programmers can mess up their exception handling and mismanage their dependencies, I am firmly minimalist.
Never mind time saved in writing code, that barely matters.
What matters is time saved in code reviewing and debugging, and that is nearly always easier in a minimalist language.That said, I hope there would be a market for a good, simple language suitable for automation purposes: Something that is suitable for anything from writing macros in a text editor to controlling a complicated robot, for which people now usually reinvent the wheel -- generally producing something roughly triangular with an off-set axle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243942</id>
	<title>Revolutions, hype and hyperCOBOL</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1259318160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noted two things about this,</p><p>1) It builds on a language called hypertalk, apparently; this seems to be something like what you could imagine COBOL would look like if it had been designed today. Not that COBOL is a bad language as such, but as anybody knows who has ever had to maintain old COBOL programs, the fact that it is supposed to be sort of "human language" like is a hindrance rather than a help to understanding.</p><p>COBOL, as well as hypertalk it seems, have been designed on the false assumption that what makes programming hard is the weird looking programming languages; the real truth is that programming is hard because it involves analysing a task in every detail, so you can write the code that does it, and it always turns out that doing even simple things encompasses a lot more detail than one would have imagined.</p><p>2) Isn't this "90\%" claim simply an iteration of the old one that used to accompany all the interface design tools? It wasn't true then, and it isn't now either of course. It is true that you can whip out a prototype in no time with such tools; but there is always so much more to design and programming than that. It's like Oracle Forms - you can easily make a simple application that allows you to input and retrieve data from a single table, but a real application will involve perhaps tens of tables with any number of triggers and constraints that have to work together; and of course, you don't just display the raw data on-screen, there will be name lookups, pictures etc etc. Programming is complicated because real life is.</p><p>The article asks if this sort of "ease of programming" will dumb down programming? I don't think it will get worse than it is. Bad programmers will produce crap, good one will produce good programs; and Darwin is our friend and benefactor here (that's Charles Darwin, not the OS, BTW).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noted two things about this,1 ) It builds on a language called hypertalk , apparently ; this seems to be something like what you could imagine COBOL would look like if it had been designed today .
Not that COBOL is a bad language as such , but as anybody knows who has ever had to maintain old COBOL programs , the fact that it is supposed to be sort of " human language " like is a hindrance rather than a help to understanding.COBOL , as well as hypertalk it seems , have been designed on the false assumption that what makes programming hard is the weird looking programming languages ; the real truth is that programming is hard because it involves analysing a task in every detail , so you can write the code that does it , and it always turns out that doing even simple things encompasses a lot more detail than one would have imagined.2 ) Is n't this " 90 \ % " claim simply an iteration of the old one that used to accompany all the interface design tools ?
It was n't true then , and it is n't now either of course .
It is true that you can whip out a prototype in no time with such tools ; but there is always so much more to design and programming than that .
It 's like Oracle Forms - you can easily make a simple application that allows you to input and retrieve data from a single table , but a real application will involve perhaps tens of tables with any number of triggers and constraints that have to work together ; and of course , you do n't just display the raw data on-screen , there will be name lookups , pictures etc etc .
Programming is complicated because real life is.The article asks if this sort of " ease of programming " will dumb down programming ?
I do n't think it will get worse than it is .
Bad programmers will produce crap , good one will produce good programs ; and Darwin is our friend and benefactor here ( that 's Charles Darwin , not the OS , BTW ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noted two things about this,1) It builds on a language called hypertalk, apparently; this seems to be something like what you could imagine COBOL would look like if it had been designed today.
Not that COBOL is a bad language as such, but as anybody knows who has ever had to maintain old COBOL programs, the fact that it is supposed to be sort of "human language" like is a hindrance rather than a help to understanding.COBOL, as well as hypertalk it seems, have been designed on the false assumption that what makes programming hard is the weird looking programming languages; the real truth is that programming is hard because it involves analysing a task in every detail, so you can write the code that does it, and it always turns out that doing even simple things encompasses a lot more detail than one would have imagined.2) Isn't this "90\%" claim simply an iteration of the old one that used to accompany all the interface design tools?
It wasn't true then, and it isn't now either of course.
It is true that you can whip out a prototype in no time with such tools; but there is always so much more to design and programming than that.
It's like Oracle Forms - you can easily make a simple application that allows you to input and retrieve data from a single table, but a real application will involve perhaps tens of tables with any number of triggers and constraints that have to work together; and of course, you don't just display the raw data on-screen, there will be name lookups, pictures etc etc.
Programming is complicated because real life is.The article asks if this sort of "ease of programming" will dumb down programming?
I don't think it will get worse than it is.
Bad programmers will produce crap, good one will produce good programs; and Darwin is our friend and benefactor here (that's Charles Darwin, not the OS, BTW).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240224</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259235240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that programming real non-trivial software can only get marginally easier by improving tools. The real difficulty is understanding and defining the problem and the exact solution.</p><p>If you don't understand this you are the one who doesn't recognise the trend...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that programming real non-trivial software can only get marginally easier by improving tools .
The real difficulty is understanding and defining the problem and the exact solution.If you do n't understand this you are the one who does n't recognise the trend.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that programming real non-trivial software can only get marginally easier by improving tools.
The real difficulty is understanding and defining the problem and the exact solution.If you don't understand this you are the one who doesn't recognise the trend...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240386</id>
	<title>The English language</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1259236560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If English was a language easy to communicate clearly and unambiguously what we wish to do, we wouldn't need lawyers.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If English was a language easy to communicate clearly and unambiguously what we wish to do , we would n't need lawyers.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If English was a language easy to communicate clearly and unambiguously what we wish to do, we wouldn't need lawyers.Phillip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30246538</id>
	<title>Re:Less code = faster?</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1259344500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's one thing that computer code and natural language text have in common: For both, confusing "writing" with "typing" is moronic.</p></div><p>Sounds like you're not management material!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one thing that computer code and natural language text have in common : For both , confusing " writing " with " typing " is moronic.Sounds like you 're not management material !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one thing that computer code and natural language text have in common: For both, confusing "writing" with "typing" is moronic.Sounds like you're not management material!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244706</id>
	<title>4 GL</title>
	<author>richieb</author>
	<datestamp>1259329860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Weren't we there one before with 4 GLs? See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation\_programming\_language" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't we there one before with 4 GLs ?
See Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't we there one before with 4 GLs?
See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240016</id>
	<title>Recursive acronym for a dumbed down language</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1259233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is my suggestion for a recursive acronym name for the next dumbed down programming language: Imbecile Means Beginner's Easily Coded Interactive Language Environment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is my suggestion for a recursive acronym name for the next dumbed down programming language : Imbecile Means Beginner 's Easily Coded Interactive Language Environment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is my suggestion for a recursive acronym name for the next dumbed down programming language: Imbecile Means Beginner's Easily Coded Interactive Language Environment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240730</id>
	<title>Let me paraphrase this entire post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259239140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wah!, Without my complicated programming language how will people know I'm smarter than them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wah ! , Without my complicated programming language how will people know I 'm smarter than them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wah!, Without my complicated programming language how will people know I'm smarter than them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240588</id>
	<title>Re:Quit complaining</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1259238000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>um not realy I can tell you havnt taken any real engineering classes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

a production line for say a widget to go in a internal compustion engine is a simple thing  - you can say ok if i buy a new machine tool that is X\% better than the old one I can reduce the waste rate by Y\% which corosponds to a saving of Z\%.


Which is what TQM etall are all about how ever it breaks down when you have complex systems - back in the day I worked on a RND project with the BSI looking at using formal methods in computing and the head of there software arm joked that to start with when aplying ISO 9000 they where a bit confused as to were to hang the defect tickets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>um not realy I can tell you havnt taken any real engineering classes : - ) a production line for say a widget to go in a internal compustion engine is a simple thing - you can say ok if i buy a new machine tool that is X \ % better than the old one I can reduce the waste rate by Y \ % which corosponds to a saving of Z \ % .
Which is what TQM etall are all about how ever it breaks down when you have complex systems - back in the day I worked on a RND project with the BSI looking at using formal methods in computing and the head of there software arm joked that to start with when aplying ISO 9000 they where a bit confused as to were to hang the defect tickets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um not realy I can tell you havnt taken any real engineering classes :-)

a production line for say a widget to go in a internal compustion engine is a simple thing  - you can say ok if i buy a new machine tool that is X\% better than the old one I can reduce the waste rate by Y\% which corosponds to a saving of Z\%.
Which is what TQM etall are all about how ever it breaks down when you have complex systems - back in the day I worked on a RND project with the BSI looking at using formal methods in computing and the head of there software arm joked that to start with when aplying ISO 9000 they where a bit confused as to were to hang the defect tickets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072</id>
	<title>Rev4 syntax</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1259233860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>is it just me or does an ordinary 'easy' programming language like PHP, VB or python seem much easier to work with? the syntax of rev4 seems far too verbose, not nearly enough parenthesis. <br> <br>

also if you understand how the machine works is there any real need to program in 'plain english'? the syntax doesn't quite make sense to me like other languages would. for example it seems more logical to have a loop to move something along by a tiny amount and then wait a bit rather than telling it to move a thing from one side to the other "in 5 seconds". with plain english you also end up with stuff that has multiple equally valid meanings<br> <br>

i have nothing against making programming easier, just don't think this is the right way to go about it. a good IDE with syntax highlighting and prompting features like VB and a good set of libraries with decent error handling is better than any of this plain english stuff that introduces mostly redundant keywords for the sake of having plain english</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it just me or does an ordinary 'easy ' programming language like PHP , VB or python seem much easier to work with ?
the syntax of rev4 seems far too verbose , not nearly enough parenthesis .
also if you understand how the machine works is there any real need to program in 'plain english ' ?
the syntax does n't quite make sense to me like other languages would .
for example it seems more logical to have a loop to move something along by a tiny amount and then wait a bit rather than telling it to move a thing from one side to the other " in 5 seconds " .
with plain english you also end up with stuff that has multiple equally valid meanings i have nothing against making programming easier , just do n't think this is the right way to go about it .
a good IDE with syntax highlighting and prompting features like VB and a good set of libraries with decent error handling is better than any of this plain english stuff that introduces mostly redundant keywords for the sake of having plain english</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it just me or does an ordinary 'easy' programming language like PHP, VB or python seem much easier to work with?
the syntax of rev4 seems far too verbose, not nearly enough parenthesis.
also if you understand how the machine works is there any real need to program in 'plain english'?
the syntax doesn't quite make sense to me like other languages would.
for example it seems more logical to have a loop to move something along by a tiny amount and then wait a bit rather than telling it to move a thing from one side to the other "in 5 seconds".
with plain english you also end up with stuff that has multiple equally valid meanings 

i have nothing against making programming easier, just don't think this is the right way to go about it.
a good IDE with syntax highlighting and prompting features like VB and a good set of libraries with decent error handling is better than any of this plain english stuff that introduces mostly redundant keywords for the sake of having plain english</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244112</id>
	<title>You have it easy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259320020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a stupid idea we should be going in the other direction and programming in straight binary &amp; hex like in the days of old when programmers where real men, who needs assemblers and all that kind of crap anyway! Lets make it astronomically hard to do the simplest thing and ensure we are excluding 99.9999\% of the population from even looking at a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a stupid idea we should be going in the other direction and programming in straight binary &amp; hex like in the days of old when programmers where real men , who needs assemblers and all that kind of crap anyway !
Lets make it astronomically hard to do the simplest thing and ensure we are excluding 99.9999 \ % of the population from even looking at a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a stupid idea we should be going in the other direction and programming in straight binary &amp; hex like in the days of old when programmers where real men, who needs assemblers and all that kind of crap anyway!
Lets make it astronomically hard to do the simplest thing and ensure we are excluding 99.9999\% of the population from even looking at a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240150</id>
	<title>Programming and System Design</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1259234520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today the real problem is in system design. While is some cases you create a special language to solve a special problem of a domain (domain specific languages DSL), in other places you use generators. Even though modern languages are all able to express component, class and object structures. In principle you can express modern OO designs in any language. If they have created a new language then they can most likely reduce the number of typed characters, but what they cannot reduce is the number of rules and definitions which make up the specification of the application.</p><p>Also most time in modern software design is spent for requirements engineering and development of the architecture. Followed by test planning and test implementation (if not done automatically from the specification). And only 1/3/ - 1/4 of the time (sometimes even less) is used for implementation. So honestly I do not believe their advertisements and I do not believe that their language is sooooo much easier to use than all the other languages available.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today the real problem is in system design .
While is some cases you create a special language to solve a special problem of a domain ( domain specific languages DSL ) , in other places you use generators .
Even though modern languages are all able to express component , class and object structures .
In principle you can express modern OO designs in any language .
If they have created a new language then they can most likely reduce the number of typed characters , but what they can not reduce is the number of rules and definitions which make up the specification of the application.Also most time in modern software design is spent for requirements engineering and development of the architecture .
Followed by test planning and test implementation ( if not done automatically from the specification ) .
And only 1/3/ - 1/4 of the time ( sometimes even less ) is used for implementation .
So honestly I do not believe their advertisements and I do not believe that their language is sooooo much easier to use than all the other languages available .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today the real problem is in system design.
While is some cases you create a special language to solve a special problem of a domain (domain specific languages DSL), in other places you use generators.
Even though modern languages are all able to express component, class and object structures.
In principle you can express modern OO designs in any language.
If they have created a new language then they can most likely reduce the number of typed characters, but what they cannot reduce is the number of rules and definitions which make up the specification of the application.Also most time in modern software design is spent for requirements engineering and development of the architecture.
Followed by test planning and test implementation (if not done automatically from the specification).
And only 1/3/ - 1/4 of the time (sometimes even less) is used for implementation.
So honestly I do not believe their advertisements and I do not believe that their language is sooooo much easier to use than all the other languages available.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242492</id>
	<title>Re:Rev4 syntax</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1259255700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I struggled with Basic and VB because of their "natural language" crap. I find logic easier to express in a mathematical sense. C/C++/Java/C# are "easier" for me because they allow me to express my ideas without "translating" them into English first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I struggled with Basic and VB because of their " natural language " crap .
I find logic easier to express in a mathematical sense .
C/C + + /Java/C # are " easier " for me because they allow me to express my ideas without " translating " them into English first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I struggled with Basic and VB because of their "natural language" crap.
I find logic easier to express in a mathematical sense.
C/C++/Java/C# are "easier" for me because they allow me to express my ideas without "translating" them into English first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240652</id>
	<title>Ah the memories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259238540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ADD 30 TO AGE.<br>DISPLAY 'Missed me?'.<br>STOP RUN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ADD 30 TO AGE.DISPLAY 'Missed me ?
'.STOP RUN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ADD 30 TO AGE.DISPLAY 'Missed me?
'.STOP RUN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240174</id>
	<title>Read-only languages...</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1259234820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, whilst not being a programmer, do dabble in programming and I find these "natural syntax" languages, such as AppleScript, to really be read-only languages (as opposed to something like perl that's write only)</p><p>Reading through the code for an AppleScript program, it's pretty easy to pick up what's happening even if you're not overly familiar with the language. What is difficult is to write it properly, as it's so close to English, yet it's still got quite a rigid and structured syntax, so you need to use the exact form for it to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , whilst not being a programmer , do dabble in programming and I find these " natural syntax " languages , such as AppleScript , to really be read-only languages ( as opposed to something like perl that 's write only ) Reading through the code for an AppleScript program , it 's pretty easy to pick up what 's happening even if you 're not overly familiar with the language .
What is difficult is to write it properly , as it 's so close to English , yet it 's still got quite a rigid and structured syntax , so you need to use the exact form for it to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, whilst not being a programmer, do dabble in programming and I find these "natural syntax" languages, such as AppleScript, to really be read-only languages (as opposed to something like perl that's write only)Reading through the code for an AppleScript program, it's pretty easy to pick up what's happening even if you're not overly familiar with the language.
What is difficult is to write it properly, as it's so close to English, yet it's still got quite a rigid and structured syntax, so you need to use the exact form for it to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240320</id>
	<title>Re:A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1259236080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but the looser the syntax, the more that you need to know to debug. Supporting complete natural language is a daunting task. Whatever constructs that you don't employ end up forming an exceptions list.</p><p>To be honest, the language is hardly the real problem. Its been a while since I did it, but I picked up my first couple from books. The challenge was seldom the language itself, and more about breaking down a task logically into discrete units and defining them, ordering them, and putting the right logic around them.</p><p>Text based languages had many reasons to evolve the way that they did. However, I see nothing invalid about producing code in a way and or language that defines this information in a different manner. Couldn't you just as easily replace the text editor with a flow chart where each operation or function was represented as an object in the chart? Not saying this is how I want to roll, but, I see no reason that it couldn't be made functionally equivalent.</p><p>In truth, I am not sure that it will shorten the time that it takes to learn, as it will still take time to learn the skills of putting the pieces together. A calculator makes you an instant basic math wiz. Addition, subtraction, no need to learn times tables. However, its not going to obsolete learning the concepts. It can't make you an algebra god.</p><p>Once you learn one or two languages, picking up another is usually easy (I never really gave lisp a fair shake, but it was the exception). The concepts are the same. I would imagine that a person who became proficient with something more hypercard like would have little trouble translating those concepts and learning some of the high level text languages.</p><p>-Steve</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but the looser the syntax , the more that you need to know to debug .
Supporting complete natural language is a daunting task .
Whatever constructs that you do n't employ end up forming an exceptions list.To be honest , the language is hardly the real problem .
Its been a while since I did it , but I picked up my first couple from books .
The challenge was seldom the language itself , and more about breaking down a task logically into discrete units and defining them , ordering them , and putting the right logic around them.Text based languages had many reasons to evolve the way that they did .
However , I see nothing invalid about producing code in a way and or language that defines this information in a different manner .
Could n't you just as easily replace the text editor with a flow chart where each operation or function was represented as an object in the chart ?
Not saying this is how I want to roll , but , I see no reason that it could n't be made functionally equivalent.In truth , I am not sure that it will shorten the time that it takes to learn , as it will still take time to learn the skills of putting the pieces together .
A calculator makes you an instant basic math wiz .
Addition , subtraction , no need to learn times tables .
However , its not going to obsolete learning the concepts .
It ca n't make you an algebra god.Once you learn one or two languages , picking up another is usually easy ( I never really gave lisp a fair shake , but it was the exception ) .
The concepts are the same .
I would imagine that a person who became proficient with something more hypercard like would have little trouble translating those concepts and learning some of the high level text languages.-Steve  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but the looser the syntax, the more that you need to know to debug.
Supporting complete natural language is a daunting task.
Whatever constructs that you don't employ end up forming an exceptions list.To be honest, the language is hardly the real problem.
Its been a while since I did it, but I picked up my first couple from books.
The challenge was seldom the language itself, and more about breaking down a task logically into discrete units and defining them, ordering them, and putting the right logic around them.Text based languages had many reasons to evolve the way that they did.
However, I see nothing invalid about producing code in a way and or language that defines this information in a different manner.
Couldn't you just as easily replace the text editor with a flow chart where each operation or function was represented as an object in the chart?
Not saying this is how I want to roll, but, I see no reason that it couldn't be made functionally equivalent.In truth, I am not sure that it will shorten the time that it takes to learn, as it will still take time to learn the skills of putting the pieces together.
A calculator makes you an instant basic math wiz.
Addition, subtraction, no need to learn times tables.
However, its not going to obsolete learning the concepts.
It can't make you an algebra god.Once you learn one or two languages, picking up another is usually easy (I never really gave lisp a fair shake, but it was the exception).
The concepts are the same.
I would imagine that a person who became proficient with something more hypercard like would have little trouble translating those concepts and learning some of the high level text languages.-Steve
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245288</id>
	<title>Reminds me...</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1259336160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of the hype/panic induced by RoR marketing campaign few years ago. "The framework that obsoletes programmers, and lets anyone code web apps!". Yea well, we know how that went.<br> <br>

As for this particular effort, Revolution 4.0, I'm afraid guys you picked the wrong target to market to (computer geeks). We're not fooled by the verbose English syntax. It's still a pretty pedestrian scripting language from what can be seen in the examples.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the hype/panic induced by RoR marketing campaign few years ago .
" The framework that obsoletes programmers , and lets anyone code web apps ! " .
Yea well , we know how that went .
As for this particular effort , Revolution 4.0 , I 'm afraid guys you picked the wrong target to market to ( computer geeks ) .
We 're not fooled by the verbose English syntax .
It 's still a pretty pedestrian scripting language from what can be seen in the examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the hype/panic induced by RoR marketing campaign few years ago.
"The framework that obsoletes programmers, and lets anyone code web apps!".
Yea well, we know how that went.
As for this particular effort, Revolution 4.0, I'm afraid guys you picked the wrong target to market to (computer geeks).
We're not fooled by the verbose English syntax.
It's still a pretty pedestrian scripting language from what can be seen in the examples.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239930</id>
	<title>xkcd relevance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/568/" title="xkcd.com">You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas.</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas .
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas.
[xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241056</id>
	<title>Another Java Competitor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259241480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another Java competitor.</p><p>Don't worry about memory, it's hard, let Java do it for you.</p><p>Don't worry about sorting, let Java do it for you.</p><p>Don't worry about algorithms, those are hard, let Java do it for you.</p><p>Programming now a days, is nothing more than making a simple GUI, and some event driven programming, it's being deskilled, so any low paid moron can do it.</p><p>There is always embedded programming, which requires a lot more skill, but finding people who can actually program is getting harder and harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another Java competitor.Do n't worry about memory , it 's hard , let Java do it for you.Do n't worry about sorting , let Java do it for you.Do n't worry about algorithms , those are hard , let Java do it for you.Programming now a days , is nothing more than making a simple GUI , and some event driven programming , it 's being deskilled , so any low paid moron can do it.There is always embedded programming , which requires a lot more skill , but finding people who can actually program is getting harder and harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another Java competitor.Don't worry about memory, it's hard, let Java do it for you.Don't worry about sorting, let Java do it for you.Don't worry about algorithms, those are hard, let Java do it for you.Programming now a days, is nothing more than making a simple GUI, and some event driven programming, it's being deskilled, so any low paid moron can do it.There is always embedded programming, which requires a lot more skill, but finding people who can actually program is getting harder and harder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244654</id>
	<title>And it comes full circle...</title>
	<author>dgas</author>
	<datestamp>1259329020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A language that reads like english? You have "invented" COBOL...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A language that reads like english ?
You have " invented " COBOL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A language that reads like english?
You have "invented" COBOL...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244462</id>
	<title>Re:Submarine article</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1259325660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you're at Paul Graham's, the article "<a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html" title="paulgraham.com">The Hundred-Year Language</a> [paulgraham.com]" seems rather pertinent.<br>Apart from providing that one link, I have nothing more to add to this entire Slashdot story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're at Paul Graham 's , the article " The Hundred-Year Language [ paulgraham.com ] " seems rather pertinent.Apart from providing that one link , I have nothing more to add to this entire Slashdot story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're at Paul Graham's, the article "The Hundred-Year Language [paulgraham.com]" seems rather pertinent.Apart from providing that one link, I have nothing more to add to this entire Slashdot story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244914</id>
	<title>programming cannot be dumbed down</title>
	<author>j1mmy</author>
	<datestamp>1259332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>regardless of the language in use, programming still requires the ability to think logically to develop a solution to whatever problem the programmer is trying to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>regardless of the language in use , programming still requires the ability to think logically to develop a solution to whatever problem the programmer is trying to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>regardless of the language in use, programming still requires the ability to think logically to develop a solution to whatever problem the programmer is trying to solve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940</id>
	<title>Interesting, yet exaggerated...</title>
	<author>rdean400</author>
	<datestamp>1259232840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big thing I notice in their "competitive comparisons" is that they strive to make Java, C#, C++, and PHP as verbose as possible when they're creating what looks like it should be optimal Rev code.</p><p>I wonder if they didn't compare themselves to Ruby or Python because they couldn't contrive examples that produce huge LOC differences?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big thing I notice in their " competitive comparisons " is that they strive to make Java , C # , C + + , and PHP as verbose as possible when they 're creating what looks like it should be optimal Rev code.I wonder if they did n't compare themselves to Ruby or Python because they could n't contrive examples that produce huge LOC differences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big thing I notice in their "competitive comparisons" is that they strive to make Java, C#, C++, and PHP as verbose as possible when they're creating what looks like it should be optimal Rev code.I wonder if they didn't compare themselves to Ruby or Python because they couldn't contrive examples that produce huge LOC differences?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241132</id>
	<title>Re:Its been being "dumbed down" since the start</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259242020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm, since there are certainly web frameworks for C++, you shouldn't be too surprised if you stumble once on one for asm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm , since there are certainly web frameworks for C + + , you should n't be too surprised if you stumble once on one for asm ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm, since there are certainly web frameworks for C++, you shouldn't be too surprised if you stumble once on one for asm ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30251500</id>
	<title>Re:Feasability and Readability</title>
	<author>bbn</author>
	<datestamp>1259331420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is shorter and (in my opinion) much more readable."</p><p>Shorter? Here is a Scala implementation:</p><p><tt><br>import java.io.{FileReader,BufferedReader}</tt></p><p><tt>def sortWord(word: String) = word.split("").toList.sort(\_&lt;\_)<br>val sourceWord = sortWord("documenting")</tt></p><p><tt>def makeSet(r: BufferedReader, s: Set[String]): Set[String] =<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; r.readLine match { case null =&gt; s; case word =&gt; makeSet(r, s + word) }</tt></p><p><tt>val wordList = makeSet(new BufferedReader(new FileReader("wordlist.txt")),Set()).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; filter { word =&gt; word.split("").forall( c =&gt; sourceWord.exists(c==\_) ) }.toStream</tt></p><p><tt>println(wordList.flatMap(w1=&gt;wordList.filter(w2=&gt;sourceWord==sortWord(w1+w2)).map(w1+\_)).toList)<br></tt></p><p>That is 8 lines of Scala vs 28 lines of revTalk, not counting blank lines.</p><p>Is it more readable? Maybe. There is more code read anyhow. Personally I thought the Python program won by a far margin on that.</p><p>"put firstWord &amp;&amp; secondWord &amp; return after anagramList"</p><p>How am I supposed to guess what &amp;&amp; is compared to &amp; ? It is not any different from knowing what \_ does in the Scala program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is shorter and ( in my opinion ) much more readable. " Shorter ?
Here is a Scala implementation : import java.io .
{ FileReader,BufferedReader } def sortWord ( word : String ) = word.split ( " " ) .toList.sort ( \ _val sourceWord = sortWord ( " documenting " ) def makeSet ( r : BufferedReader , s : Set [ String ] ) : Set [ String ] =     r.readLine match { case null = &gt; s ; case word = &gt; makeSet ( r , s + word ) } val wordList = makeSet ( new BufferedReader ( new FileReader ( " wordlist.txt " ) ) ,Set ( ) ) .
    filter { word = &gt; word.split ( " " ) .forall ( c = &gt; sourceWord.exists ( c = = \ _ ) ) } .toStreamprintln ( wordList.flatMap ( w1 = &gt; wordList.filter ( w2 = &gt; sourceWord = = sortWord ( w1 + w2 ) ) .map ( w1 + \ _ ) ) .toList ) That is 8 lines of Scala vs 28 lines of revTalk , not counting blank lines.Is it more readable ?
Maybe. There is more code read anyhow .
Personally I thought the Python program won by a far margin on that .
" put firstWord &amp;&amp; secondWord &amp; return after anagramList " How am I supposed to guess what &amp;&amp; is compared to &amp; ?
It is not any different from knowing what \ _ does in the Scala program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is shorter and (in my opinion) much more readable."Shorter?
Here is a Scala implementation:import java.io.
{FileReader,BufferedReader}def sortWord(word: String) = word.split("").toList.sort(\_val sourceWord = sortWord("documenting")def makeSet(r: BufferedReader, s: Set[String]): Set[String] =
    r.readLine match { case null =&gt; s; case word =&gt; makeSet(r, s + word) }val wordList = makeSet(new BufferedReader(new FileReader("wordlist.txt")),Set()).
    filter { word =&gt; word.split("").forall( c =&gt; sourceWord.exists(c==\_) ) }.toStreamprintln(wordList.flatMap(w1=&gt;wordList.filter(w2=&gt;sourceWord==sortWord(w1+w2)).map(w1+\_)).toList)That is 8 lines of Scala vs 28 lines of revTalk, not counting blank lines.Is it more readable?
Maybe. There is more code read anyhow.
Personally I thought the Python program won by a far margin on that.
"put firstWord &amp;&amp; secondWord &amp; return after anagramList"How am I supposed to guess what &amp;&amp; is compared to &amp; ?
It is not any different from knowing what \_ does in the Scala program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240444</id>
	<title>Re:Read-only languages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259237040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOD this!  To restate: this does not solve the problem of programming language form.  It just replaces the language syntax with common english words.  Wooptydoo.  I think the video game advertisements for 100 level CS courses will do more to get people "into" programming.  But still, it's one thing to get people to start programming, and whole other thing to get people to have enthusiasm for it.  I beginning to believe you enjoy programming/computing, or you don't, and nothing can change that.  I'm seeing far too many kids going in to CS that don't give a rats ass about learning computers (let alone a language intimately) just becuase there are high paying jobs on the other end.  Learn just enough of the language just to pass their courses (and that's mostly just copy and pasting from an example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOD this !
To restate : this does not solve the problem of programming language form .
It just replaces the language syntax with common english words .
Wooptydoo. I think the video game advertisements for 100 level CS courses will do more to get people " into " programming .
But still , it 's one thing to get people to start programming , and whole other thing to get people to have enthusiasm for it .
I beginning to believe you enjoy programming/computing , or you do n't , and nothing can change that .
I 'm seeing far too many kids going in to CS that do n't give a rats ass about learning computers ( let alone a language intimately ) just becuase there are high paying jobs on the other end .
Learn just enough of the language just to pass their courses ( and that 's mostly just copy and pasting from an example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOD this!
To restate: this does not solve the problem of programming language form.
It just replaces the language syntax with common english words.
Wooptydoo.  I think the video game advertisements for 100 level CS courses will do more to get people "into" programming.
But still, it's one thing to get people to start programming, and whole other thing to get people to have enthusiasm for it.
I beginning to believe you enjoy programming/computing, or you don't, and nothing can change that.
I'm seeing far too many kids going in to CS that don't give a rats ass about learning computers (let alone a language intimately) just becuase there are high paying jobs on the other end.
Learn just enough of the language just to pass their courses (and that's mostly just copy and pasting from an example).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241156</id>
	<title>sounds Familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259242200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't we used to call it COBOL.<br>"Wow Grace, now anyone will be able to program"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we used to call it COBOL .
" Wow Grace , now anyone will be able to program " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we used to call it COBOL.
"Wow Grace, now anyone will be able to program" :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240468</id>
	<title>Maintenance</title>
	<author>devnullkac</author>
	<datestamp>1259237220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you can bring programming to the masses, workaday programmers better hope that nothing those masses produce becomes important, because such things inevitably land on their desks when they need a tweak and the author has moved on.  Maintainability is a quality that is difficult for even experienced programmers to put into their work.  First timers rarely see the costs a year down the road of any implementation decisions, usually because they don't yet know there are multiple implementation possibilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you can bring programming to the masses , workaday programmers better hope that nothing those masses produce becomes important , because such things inevitably land on their desks when they need a tweak and the author has moved on .
Maintainability is a quality that is difficult for even experienced programmers to put into their work .
First timers rarely see the costs a year down the road of any implementation decisions , usually because they do n't yet know there are multiple implementation possibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you can bring programming to the masses, workaday programmers better hope that nothing those masses produce becomes important, because such things inevitably land on their desks when they need a tweak and the author has moved on.
Maintainability is a quality that is difficult for even experienced programmers to put into their work.
First timers rarely see the costs a year down the road of any implementation decisions, usually because they don't yet know there are multiple implementation possibilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239960</id>
	<title>There's more than one way to do it.</title>
	<author>wkitchen</author>
	<datestamp>1259232960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You get what you want. Someone else gets what they want. What's to get bent out of shape over?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You get what you want .
Someone else gets what they want .
What 's to get bent out of shape over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get what you want.
Someone else gets what they want.
What's to get bent out of shape over?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240146</id>
	<title>Programs written in English? That's COBOL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259234520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but I don't see what the fuss is about.</p><p>How is whatever Revolution is doing any different from<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MULTIPLY HOURS-WORKED BY HOURLY-RATE GIVING GROSS-PAY<br>or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; PERFORM WEEKLY-CALCULATIONS VARYING WEEK-NUMBER FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL WEEK-NUMBER IS GREATER THAN 52<br>?</p><p>Face it, programming languages are designed for human consumption. Computers don't care whether you wrote it in COBOL or C++ or Revolution; they only know machine language, not programming language. The purpose of a programming language is to allow the programmer to express a set of instructions in a way that s/he and other programmers understands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but I do n't see what the fuss is about.How is whatever Revolution is doing any different from         MULTIPLY HOURS-WORKED BY HOURLY-RATE GIVING GROSS-PAYor         PERFORM WEEKLY-CALCULATIONS VARYING WEEK-NUMBER FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL WEEK-NUMBER IS GREATER THAN 52 ? Face it , programming languages are designed for human consumption .
Computers do n't care whether you wrote it in COBOL or C + + or Revolution ; they only know machine language , not programming language .
The purpose of a programming language is to allow the programmer to express a set of instructions in a way that s/he and other programmers understands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but I don't see what the fuss is about.How is whatever Revolution is doing any different from
        MULTIPLY HOURS-WORKED BY HOURLY-RATE GIVING GROSS-PAYor
        PERFORM WEEKLY-CALCULATIONS VARYING WEEK-NUMBER FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL WEEK-NUMBER IS GREATER THAN 52?Face it, programming languages are designed for human consumption.
Computers don't care whether you wrote it in COBOL or C++ or Revolution; they only know machine language, not programming language.
The purpose of a programming language is to allow the programmer to express a set of instructions in a way that s/he and other programmers understands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240054</id>
	<title>Marketing Fluff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259233680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop sending marketing fluff in as if it is news.<br>The related article and the supposed replies on it have been constructed as a media release for this companies programming product.</p><p>I could argue a number of points about this article and the underlying software.</p><p>But what is the point? To help market this product for a company that wants to do viral marketing?</p><p>No thank you.</p><p>If you agree: mark me up but please don't reply/add to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop sending marketing fluff in as if it is news.The related article and the supposed replies on it have been constructed as a media release for this companies programming product.I could argue a number of points about this article and the underlying software.But what is the point ?
To help market this product for a company that wants to do viral marketing ? No thank you.If you agree : mark me up but please do n't reply/add to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop sending marketing fluff in as if it is news.The related article and the supposed replies on it have been constructed as a media release for this companies programming product.I could argue a number of points about this article and the underlying software.But what is the point?
To help market this product for a company that wants to do viral marketing?No thank you.If you agree: mark me up but please don't reply/add to this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239988</id>
	<title>Unreadable site</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1259233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whose idea was it to put <i>light peach text</i> on a white background?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whose idea was it to put light peach text on a white background ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whose idea was it to put light peach text on a white background?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240214</id>
	<title>hypercard</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1259235180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does 'magic' still work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does 'magic ' still work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does 'magic' still work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30250166</id>
	<title>Re:A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>ockegheim</author>
	<datestamp>1259322780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In truth, I am not sure that it will shorten the time that it takes to learn, as it will still take time to learn the skills of putting the pieces together.</p></div></blockquote><p>This reminds me of APIs and wrappers. Almost every framework I've tried to use involves learning another set of object-types and APIs. One layer of abstraction is just the same as another to my mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In truth , I am not sure that it will shorten the time that it takes to learn , as it will still take time to learn the skills of putting the pieces together.This reminds me of APIs and wrappers .
Almost every framework I 've tried to use involves learning another set of object-types and APIs .
One layer of abstraction is just the same as another to my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In truth, I am not sure that it will shorten the time that it takes to learn, as it will still take time to learn the skills of putting the pieces together.This reminds me of APIs and wrappers.
Almost every framework I've tried to use involves learning another set of object-types and APIs.
One layer of abstraction is just the same as another to my mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240294</id>
	<title>All you young kids with your fancy 1s and 0s</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1259235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was a boy all we had were 1s, and we had to break those off of trees.  If we wanted zeros we had to find a willow tree and bend the one around until both ends met....</p><p>Now get off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a boy all we had were 1s , and we had to break those off of trees .
If we wanted zeros we had to find a willow tree and bend the one around until both ends met....Now get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a boy all we had were 1s, and we had to break those off of trees.
If we wanted zeros we had to find a willow tree and bend the one around until both ends met....Now get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240238</id>
	<title>Is it really dumbing down?</title>
	<author>azav</author>
	<datestamp>1259235420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it really dumbing down or are the languages that we use more obtuse than necessary?  The common syntaxes of the day are left over from language design when every bit mattered.  If English-ish syntax is more clear, then why not use it?</p><p>Isn't it more about clarity of the language than about shortest code possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really dumbing down or are the languages that we use more obtuse than necessary ?
The common syntaxes of the day are left over from language design when every bit mattered .
If English-ish syntax is more clear , then why not use it ? Is n't it more about clarity of the language than about shortest code possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really dumbing down or are the languages that we use more obtuse than necessary?
The common syntaxes of the day are left over from language design when every bit mattered.
If English-ish syntax is more clear, then why not use it?Isn't it more about clarity of the language than about shortest code possible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247584</id>
	<title>Re:90\% claim is fake</title>
	<author>RunRevKev</author>
	<datestamp>1259351280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems you may have made the point in favor of revTalk and not even realized it. Assuming no previous knowledge of programming languages, which would you rather learn? <p>

answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of theString </p><p>

Or: </p><p>

alert(theString.replaceFirst("(.*\n){4}\\s*\\S+\\s+","").substring(0,3)); </p><p>

Get a single one of those symbols wrong and it won't work. </p><p>

And what about maintenance? You can read the revTalk example but you'll have to read the other example very closely to remember what it does. In this example you've found a way to do something with a similar number of lines of code, but perhaps we could say that the revTalk requires rather less thought in writing that line. The productivity benefit may still be there. </p><p>

BTW, if you are familiar with regex and therefore want to continue using them, they are fully supported in revTalk, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems you may have made the point in favor of revTalk and not even realized it .
Assuming no previous knowledge of programming languages , which would you rather learn ?
answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of theString Or : alert ( theString.replaceFirst ( " ( .
* \ n ) { 4 } \ \ s * \ \ S + \ \ s + " , " " ) .substring ( 0,3 ) ) ; Get a single one of those symbols wrong and it wo n't work .
And what about maintenance ?
You can read the revTalk example but you 'll have to read the other example very closely to remember what it does .
In this example you 've found a way to do something with a similar number of lines of code , but perhaps we could say that the revTalk requires rather less thought in writing that line .
The productivity benefit may still be there .
BTW , if you are familiar with regex and therefore want to continue using them , they are fully supported in revTalk , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems you may have made the point in favor of revTalk and not even realized it.
Assuming no previous knowledge of programming languages, which would you rather learn?
answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of theString 

Or: 

alert(theString.replaceFirst("(.
*\n){4}\\s*\\S+\\s+","").substring(0,3)); 

Get a single one of those symbols wrong and it won't work.
And what about maintenance?
You can read the revTalk example but you'll have to read the other example very closely to remember what it does.
In this example you've found a way to do something with a similar number of lines of code, but perhaps we could say that the revTalk requires rather less thought in writing that line.
The productivity benefit may still be there.
BTW, if you are familiar with regex and therefore want to continue using them, they are fully supported in revTalk, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239994</id>
	<title>Re:A Natural Progression Yet So Many Caveats</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1259233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the debate is more over the syntax of the language than the implementation of it.<br> <br>Note that:<br>
<tt>myString.pop()</tt> <br>
and<br>
<tt>remove the last character from myString</tt> <br> <br>
produce the same thing in the end.  I guess I don't follow your concerns about overhead..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the debate is more over the syntax of the language than the implementation of it .
Note that : myString.pop ( ) and remove the last character from myString produce the same thing in the end .
I guess I do n't follow your concerns about overhead. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the debate is more over the syntax of the language than the implementation of it.
Note that:
myString.pop() 
and
remove the last character from myString  
produce the same thing in the end.
I guess I don't follow your concerns about overhead..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239926</id>
	<title>Lowering the bar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259232720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let dumber people program and you end up with dumber programs.  Way back in year 2000 I found that most of the Y2K bugs were actually from more recently written programs in dumbed down languages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let dumber people program and you end up with dumber programs .
Way back in year 2000 I found that most of the Y2K bugs were actually from more recently written programs in dumbed down languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let dumber people program and you end up with dumber programs.
Way back in year 2000 I found that most of the Y2K bugs were actually from more recently written programs in dumbed down languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240234</id>
	<title>One word: Haskell!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259235360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It alone moved me from a normal commercial software developer, to the forefront of scientific development in informatics, and made me so much a better programmer at normal programs, it&rsquo;s not even funny.</p><p>Then again, I am one of the rare kind of people who still think that intelligence is cool, and being better because you worked to be better, should be rewarded. Instead of rewarding those who do worst, and dumbing everything down, just for the nature to create better idiots, and thereby creating a feedback loop straight to Idiocracy.</p><p>But maybe I will write the heart-lung-machine software then, while they write the VB and Access applications of the future. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It alone moved me from a normal commercial software developer , to the forefront of scientific development in informatics , and made me so much a better programmer at normal programs , it    s not even funny.Then again , I am one of the rare kind of people who still think that intelligence is cool , and being better because you worked to be better , should be rewarded .
Instead of rewarding those who do worst , and dumbing everything down , just for the nature to create better idiots , and thereby creating a feedback loop straight to Idiocracy.But maybe I will write the heart-lung-machine software then , while they write the VB and Access applications of the future .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It alone moved me from a normal commercial software developer, to the forefront of scientific development in informatics, and made me so much a better programmer at normal programs, it’s not even funny.Then again, I am one of the rare kind of people who still think that intelligence is cool, and being better because you worked to be better, should be rewarded.
Instead of rewarding those who do worst, and dumbing everything down, just for the nature to create better idiots, and thereby creating a feedback loop straight to Idiocracy.But maybe I will write the heart-lung-machine software then, while they write the VB and Access applications of the future.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240970</id>
	<title>Dumbing Down Programming?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259240760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  Dumb it down far enough and many of those writing software today will be able to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Dumb it down far enough and many of those writing software today will be able to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Dumb it down far enough and many of those writing software today will be able to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240004</id>
	<title>Certainly not English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259233320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Natural languages are full of ambiguities, so these "natural language programming environments" always use a more formal syntax (and semantic) and only look superficially like a natural language. Until you can actually talk to a computer (and the computer can take all the context into account), programming in such a language irritates people to no end when they stumble upon one of the differences between the programming language and the natural language it imitates.</p><p>Programming is the act of understanding and structuring a problem. The coding that follows is practically trivial compared to that first step. There's certainly a need for more programmers, because more and more is automated and someone has to write that software, but please don't create the impression that you can eliminate thinking from programming. Fixing bad code costs more than writing good code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural languages are full of ambiguities , so these " natural language programming environments " always use a more formal syntax ( and semantic ) and only look superficially like a natural language .
Until you can actually talk to a computer ( and the computer can take all the context into account ) , programming in such a language irritates people to no end when they stumble upon one of the differences between the programming language and the natural language it imitates.Programming is the act of understanding and structuring a problem .
The coding that follows is practically trivial compared to that first step .
There 's certainly a need for more programmers , because more and more is automated and someone has to write that software , but please do n't create the impression that you can eliminate thinking from programming .
Fixing bad code costs more than writing good code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural languages are full of ambiguities, so these "natural language programming environments" always use a more formal syntax (and semantic) and only look superficially like a natural language.
Until you can actually talk to a computer (and the computer can take all the context into account), programming in such a language irritates people to no end when they stumble upon one of the differences between the programming language and the natural language it imitates.Programming is the act of understanding and structuring a problem.
The coding that follows is practically trivial compared to that first step.
There's certainly a need for more programmers, because more and more is automated and someone has to write that software, but please don't create the impression that you can eliminate thinking from programming.
Fixing bad code costs more than writing good code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30246130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30251724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30251500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30248254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30250166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30249260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30249680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30246538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30248308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_2016255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241630
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30249680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30248308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30249260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30246130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240320
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30250166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30248254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30243764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30251500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30246538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30242000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30245214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240908
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30244790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30241862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30247346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30251724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30239960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_2016255.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_2016255.30240284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
