REAL Linux

[psema4]

> Python is a scripting language. Like many scripting languages, it can
> be compiled to bytecode, but it still requires an interpreter to run.

:-)  I've written a couple interpreters and compilers.  Even a
bytecode eating virtual machine based partly on those expirements. 
Found a usenet copy of Jack Crenshaw's "Let's build a compiler!"
series a long time ago, it seems.  Anyway, had to try it.  Never
thought to look again until just now, but it's available at
http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/  It's a wonderful read.

> I'm wondering if by "bad" you're talking about execution speed. Many
> of python's critics point to benchmarks which demonstrate that a
> program written in python runs slower than a similar program written
> in whatever language they happen to be looking at.
>
> The limiting factor in the vast majority of computing related
> problems is not runtime speed.

"Bad" was referring to how much bloat is in the output from the
REALbasic compiler.

I'd like to look closer at python, I've just never had a lot of time
for it.  Seeing a presentation on it should be good.

> >> I don't think this is at all the kind of thing Linux (or Windows for
> >> that matter) needs.
> >
> > Whether any OS needs it or not, the tool's exist.  Either programmers
> > can make them useful, or non-programmers will.  :S
>
> You assume that non-programmers have the capacity to make such tools
> useful. However, I'd suggest that there are people who simply do not
> think in a way that allow them to do anything like programming.
> Unless your RAD tool finds a completely new way of either doing or at
> least representing the process of computing, it will not enable these
> people.

No, but often times people (or those who employ them) that are not
suited to it, try to make themselves suited.  As I think Lennart
hinted at earlier, RAD tools have the unfortunate side effect of
making people believe they are good at programming.

> >> Tools to let non programmers think they can write programs are not
> >> that
> >> useful in my opinion because they don't make people good programers.
> >
> > Agreed, though there's nothing but education and experience to make a
> > good programmer.  Programming concepts are mostly not specific to any
> > tool or language though.
>
> Programming paradigms are often suggested, facilitated or even
> enforced by languages. For example, it requires quite a bit of effort
> to do object oriented programming in c, however it's almost
> impossible to avoid in python.

No doubts here about oop c.  Win32 was a painful api to work with. 
It's also impossible to avoid using objects in a RAD environment,
hence a several year love affair with Delphi.  Then I found perl and
linux.  lol.

One of the things I picked up on when I first started writing in
basic... I was 10, and learned the most fundamental component of
programming.  Boolean logic.  The lesson stuck in my head so firmly I
couldn't stop and became an addict.

All languages have pros and cons, but an aweful lot of "theory" can
still be transferred between languages.  Flow constructs for example. 
For's, if's, and thens.  Or constructors and exceptions, in object
oriented languages.

The hardest thing about going from one language to another is just
getting used to the new syntax.  At least that's been my experience.

> >>> The programmer in me definately agrees we don't need any more horrid
> >>> code.  On the other hand, my advocate side is thinking this is a
> >>> good
> >>> thing for the desktop.
> >>
> >> Because desktop users expect crappy applications?
> >
> > Not really.  Because after hearing about linux often enough they'll
> > take a look.  The more similarities that exist between desktop
> > applications (on linux, mac, 'doze) the easier it will be for them to
> > migrate from one OS to another.
> >
> > If I could count the number of times I've had "average" home users
> > look at linux, only to watch them fall back to windows because app-x
> > doesn't work anything like it does on windows...
>
> Perhaps that is because windows suites their needs better? Helping
> users define and then meet their needs is the only form of advocacy
> that makes sense to me.

Which is why I originally posted.  ;-)

Helping users run applications that fit their needs is exactly what
I'd like to do.  They should be able to use their apps - no matter
what OS or platform they're using.

REALbasic may offer that, a chance to  bring oridinary people a little
closer to seeing the value of linux.  RB might be a proprietary
product, but it can still help people migrate.

And I know there are programmers on the list.  Some of them may have
used VB.  Maybe they've got an idea for the desktop.

I intend to try it out.  If I run up against a desktop app that I
need, I can whip it off.  (Probably nothing special for a while, but
the reason's top secret still.  ;-)

Others might be able to use it to generate some business might like
the cross-platform bit.  I dunno.  Just thought I'd share.  The more
sharing, the more people learn.  And in the end, somebody down the
line might even start using linux, because we shared our thoughts.

That sounds a little idealogical and over the top, but that doesn't
stop it from being a potential reality.  Sharing is the only advocacy 
that make sense to me.

Take care,
- Scott.

--
- SGE
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml