Is Logic in Programming NOW important?
closed account (13bSLyTq)
Hi,
I recently though languages like C#, VB (Other .NET languages) and such are kind of ruining our original Programming Glory, our heritage.
To elaborate, these languages have almost majority of the functions created for you and easily accessible and used. That bring me to an better conclusion.
Programmers back in the day (those legends), had immense logic of building the best and most effective algorithms for say copying files and such or building Network applications. That said, in today's world even say an 7 year old can start learning to code.
Next, I am assuming by 2050 in most countries Computer Programming would be an priority with Mathematics, Science, English.
Would you say this "logic-less" programming is good or bad?
I recently though languages like C#, VB (Other .NET languages) and such are kind of ruining our original Programming Glory, our heritage.
To elaborate, these languages have almost majority of the functions created for you and easily accessible and used. That bring me to an better conclusion.
Programmers back in the day (those legends), had immense logic of building the best and most effective algorithms for say copying files and such or building Network applications. That said, in today's world even say an 7 year old can start learning to code.
Next, I am assuming by 2050 in most countries Computer Programming would be an priority with Mathematics, Science, English.
Would you say this "logic-less" programming is good or bad?
It's not logic-less, it is called not having to reinvent the wheel over and over again. If a programmer wanted to they could easily ignore the libraries and write their own functions and libraries to do the exact thing the supplied libraries do. Instead they prefer to use the supplied libraries that has the algorithms done for them so they can focus on the logic of the software they want to create.
| these languages have almost majority of the functions created for you |
| Would you say this "logic-less" programming is good or bad? |
I would say these two statements (and your whole argument) doesn't really fit. Yes .NET takes gives you a lot of the basic algorithms that people use, but most of the time you shouldn't be making stuff like that yourself anyway (don't reinvent the wheel etc).
None of this takes any from any "logic", you still need to fit everything together correctly and when looking at the big picture they could make every function for you and it wouldn't do any good if you didn't know how to combine everything correctly. It is kind of like saying "well remember when everyone coded in assembly, I think C++ is taking away the glory of programming by giving us built in functions.
I think the fact that 7 year olds are able to start coding now is great, it doesn't take anything away from programming.
closed account (13bSLyTq)
@Disch
I'm saying many programming languages are adopting these read-made functions. I never mentioned that I need no logic, lol. I probably use logic everyday at least 200 - 300 times in programming.
_____
But .NET created nearly all functions from P2P networking to string manipulation. That being said programming does not require as much logic as it used to would that not mean that later in future programming jobs will be taken by nearly anyone due to this.
I'm saying many programming languages are adopting these read-made functions. I never mentioned that I need no logic, lol. I probably use logic everyday at least 200 - 300 times in programming.
_____
But .NET created nearly all functions from P2P networking to string manipulation. That being said programming does not require as much logic as it used to would that not mean that later in future programming jobs will be taken by nearly anyone due to this.
Last edited on
| But .NET created nearly all functions from P2P networking to string manipulation. |
All that means is that there's a standard that most programmers come into the job already being familiar with... rather than companies trying to piece together bits and pieces of scattered code. This does nothing but boost productivity.
| That being said programming does not require as much logic as it used to |
This is not at all true. I don't see how you're making the connection between "common tasks being standardized in libs" to "programming doesn't require as much logic". The two are in no way connected.
| later in future programming jobs will be taken by nearly anyone due to this. |
Programming jobs might be more difficult to obtain ... but not for the reason you're thinking. Random people off the street aren't going to be able to program no matter how many libs are available.
However... more people are gaining interest in programming and therefore there is more competition.
Programming (and computing in general) is a world of change. You old fogies and your "things were better in the 80s on my Apple II when you had to program in machine code" are nuts. Programmers can do things now that they never could back then -- and not just because the hardware got better -- the software got better too.
That said... programming at its core has not changed. It's still about logic and problem solving. The only difference is that now the problems are more complex because all the easier ones have already been solved.
Yeah progression sucks; everytime someone wants to do something, they should write it all from scratch...
Although we do have rather better tools (in terms of mathematics, software and hardware) to tackle them. ;)
| That said... programming at its core has not changed. It's still about logic and problem solving. The only difference is that now the problems are more complex because all the easier ones have already been solved. |
Although we do have rather better tools (in terms of mathematics, software and hardware) to tackle them. ;)
A lot of people skirt by without learning the fundamentals. While progress is a thing, a lot of people get very library dependent very fast.
Case in point:
A lot of people can use rails.
Not very many people could implement rails.
A lot of people can install a tags plugin for rails.
A distressingly low number of people can implement tags in rails.
Case in point:
A lot of people can use rails.
Not very many people could implement rails.
A lot of people can install a tags plugin for rails.
A distressingly low number of people can implement tags in rails.
That's a poor analogy.
A lot of people can use the OS.
Not very many people can implement the OS.
A lot of people can install drivers for the OS.
A distressingly low number of people can implement the drivers for OS.
EDIT: I can argue that this is true but it doesn't really matter. These aren't fundamentals. Implementing tags in rails is probably more difficult than using the tag plugins.
A lot of people can use the OS.
Not very many people can implement the OS.
A lot of people can install drivers for the OS.
A distressingly low number of people can implement the drivers for OS.
EDIT: I can argue that this is true but it doesn't really matter. These aren't fundamentals. Implementing tags in rails is probably more difficult than using the tag plugins.
Last edited on
I can drive a car pretty well, but damned if I could build one. Guess I'm just way too dependent on engineers...
Is being library dependent such a bad thing? I would argue that no it isn't. All that really matters in software development is getting a finished product.
If I was given the choice of spending months if not years learning the low level aspects of a subject to create my product, or just using a library to create my product and skip that months/years learning I would choose the library every single time.
From what I have seen (and this doesn't apply to everyone) is usually the people saying that you should learn the low level aspects of a library and how it is implemented before using it usually don't have anything to show for it whereas the people who actually do use the libraries have a finished product that they can be happy about.
Again that doesn't apply to everything (Specially when you work for a company as a programmer), some products or aspects of software engineering you do need to know the very low level stuff. It really comes down how much do you really need to know to be able to complete your software. If using a library is enough (More then likely the case) then use it plain and simple.
So personally in my opinion being library dependent if far from a bad thing, in fact I believe it is a good thing since it decreases the development times of projects by a considerable amount and allows us to program more complicated software with fewer members on the team.
If I was given the choice of spending months if not years learning the low level aspects of a subject to create my product, or just using a library to create my product and skip that months/years learning I would choose the library every single time.
From what I have seen (and this doesn't apply to everyone) is usually the people saying that you should learn the low level aspects of a library and how it is implemented before using it usually don't have anything to show for it whereas the people who actually do use the libraries have a finished product that they can be happy about.
Again that doesn't apply to everything (Specially when you work for a company as a programmer), some products or aspects of software engineering you do need to know the very low level stuff. It really comes down how much do you really need to know to be able to complete your software. If using a library is enough (More then likely the case) then use it plain and simple.
So personally in my opinion being library dependent if far from a bad thing, in fact I believe it is a good thing since it decreases the development times of projects by a considerable amount and allows us to program more complicated software with fewer members on the team.
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| CodeGazer wrote: |
|---|
| So personally in my opinion being library dependent if far from a bad thing, |
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.