A group about programming languages

Sorry for disturbing members of this group, but do you know what is
the group for discussing about programming languages in general (not
about any specified ones)? Thanks in advance.

nguyenminhhai writes:
> Sorry for disturbing members of this group, but do you know what is
> the group for discussing about programming languages in general (not
> about any specified ones)? Thanks in advance.

comp.lang.misc

--
Hallvard

"Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote in message
news:hbf.20080905g29a@bombur.uio.no...
> nguyenminhhai writes:
>> Sorry for disturbing members of this group, but do you know what is
>> the group for discussing about programming languages in general (not
>> about any specified ones)? Thanks in advance.
>
> comp.lang.misc

That group is practically dead. If any discussion is going on, it must be
elsewhere.

--
Bartc

Bartc writes:
>Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:hbf.20080905g29a@bombur.uio.no...
>> nguyenminhhai writes:
>>> Sorry for disturbing members of this group, but do you know what is
>>> the group for discussing about programming languages in general (not
>>> about any specified ones)? Thanks in advance.
>>
>> comp.lang.misc
>
> That group is practically dead. If any discussion is going on, it must
> be elsewhere.

Hm, true. 3-4 messages a day, and what distinguishes the long threads I
peeked at is that they are cross-posted here. In that case I guess
this group is as good as any.

--
Hallvard

"Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote in message
news:hbf.20080905gkrx@bombur.uio.no...
> Bartc writes:
>>Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote in message
>> news:hbf.20080905g29a@bombur.uio.no...
>>> nguyenminhhai writes:
>>>> Sorry for disturbing members of this group, but do you know what is
>>>> the group for discussing about programming languages in general (not
>>>> about any specified ones)? Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> comp.lang.misc
>>
>> That group is practically dead. If any discussion is going on, it must
>> be elsewhere.
>
> Hm, true. 3-4 messages a day, and what distinguishes the long threads I
> peeked at is that they are cross-posted here. In that case I guess
> this group is as good as any.

That many? I could only see two new threads in the last two weeks and little
other activity apart from the cross-posts you mentioned. Makes
comp.compilers (also worth a look) seem almost buzzing.

--
Bartc

nguyenminhhai wrote:
>
> Sorry for disturbing members of this group, but do you know what
> is the group for discussing about programming languages in general
> (not about any specified ones)? Thanks in advance.

What's wrong with right here?

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

Bartc wrote:
>
> "Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:hbf.20080905g29a@bombur.uio.no...
>> nguyenminhhai writes:
>>> Sorry for disturbing members of this group, but do you know what is
>>> the group for discussing about programming languages in general (not
>>> about any specified ones)? Thanks in advance.
>>
>> comp.lang.misc
>
> That group is practically dead. If any discussion is going on, it must be
> elsewhere.

From what I see, most don't post to comp.lang.misc but instead instead
troll dedicated language groups to take pot shots or evangelize off
topic languages.

There seems to be a serious division of the vast majority of people into
either language agnostic or raving extremists. A genuine discussion
seems pretty hard to find. There are plenty of mine is better than yours
flames raging. There are probably a dozen threads scattered around with
people arguing over "modern" languages and "garbage collecting"
languages with little more than "is not" and "is too" posts. By far the
distinguishing factor of these threads is that they are write only.
Nobody is seriously listening.

Many universities have a course or two with the purpose of comparing
languages. It's possible to google and find some of them and learn quite
a bit is you simply seek information.

For most working programmers, language choice is not a matter of free
will and the typical usenet discussions are mostly pointless.
>

stan said:

<snip>

> From what I see, most don't post to comp.lang.misc but instead instead
> troll dedicated language groups to take pot shots or evangelize off
> topic languages.
>
> There seems to be a serious division of the vast majority of people into
> either language agnostic or raving extremists.

Speaking as a raving extremist myself, I suspect that a few
language-agnostic discussions about languages would actually do this group
a world of good. It's hard to be language-agnostic if you're one of
nature's raving extremists, but it's a useful intellectual exercise -
trying to play Nirvana's Advocate, pretending that language choice is
completely objective and that there is no emotion involved at all. Stay
cool, examine the facts, make dispassionate comparisons between Ook! and
Eb and Fortran 77 and Lithp and Visual Basic, chat nicely with each other,
work out the right language for a particular job, and then use it for that
job, and be ready to repeat the selection process when the next task comes
along.

Very few people, and certainly no raving extremists such as myself,
actually do this in real life, but it would be pleasant to pretend on
Usenet, wouldn't it? And if we *could* manage it, the resulting rational
discussion might actually be helpful to someone or other. Maybe.

Unfortunately, the cooler and more agnostic some of us try to be (in
unnatural defiance of our inner natures), the hotter and more zealous
others become in their determination to push their particular fix, trying
to hook others into it, not so much to share their highs as to avoid being
alone in their lows. Rationality is doomed to a back seat in such
discussions. Usenet is rationality-agnostic, but it abhors a heat vacuum.

<snip>

> For most working programmers, language choice is not a matter of free
> will and the typical usenet discussions are mostly pointless.

Well, that's true, but most typical Usenet discussions are pointless
anyway. Mostly it's people nitpicking each other over trivia or
demonstrating their failure to understand the concept of civilised
discussion or asking others to do their homework for them or doing their
homework for them or refusing to do their homework for them or explaining
why they are refusing to do their homework for them or explaining that it
really truly honestly isn't homework even though it looks a bit like it or
attempting to persuade you to buy pharmaceutical goods from strangers over
the Internet that you would hesitate to accept as a gift from the family
doctor you've known and loved for thirty years or nodding to each other
over in-jokes the point of which was reasonably well-known a decade ago
but is now known only to four or five people currently using the group or
complaints about topicality or complaints about complaints about
topicality or complaints about complaints about complaints about
topicality or plugging their religion or attacking their religion or
explaining why it is not a good idea to plug a religion or attack a
religion on Usenet or a statistical analysis of pointless discussions of
the last month broken down by poster frequency and by newsreader and by
original text and by any useless category you can think of or people
posting replies that demonstrate beyond doubt that they have either not
read or at least not understood the post to which they are replying or
people trying to persuade you to use their rather lame excuse for an open
source software package or people posting just to say how deeply and
abidingly they hate everything that some other person stands for on the
rather tenuous assumption that anyone else has the slightest interest or
people taking a stab at posting the longest sentence without commas in the
history of comp.programming that anyone can remember without actually
checking on the pretext of ranting about how pointless most typical Usenet
discussions are and then telling you that the sentence in question
contains 337 words.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Well, that's true, but most typical Usenet discussions are pointless
> anyway. Mostly it's people nitpicking each other over trivia or
> demonstrating their failure to understand the concept of civilised
> discussion or asking others to do their homework for them or doing their
> homework for them or refusing to do their homework for them or explaining
> why they are refusing to do their homework for them or explaining that it
> really truly honestly isn't homework even though it looks a bit like it or
> attempting to persuade you to buy pharmaceutical goods from strangers over
> the Internet that you would hesitate to accept as a gift from the family
> doctor you've known and loved for thirty years or nodding to each other
> over in-jokes the point of which was reasonably well-known a decade ago
> but is now known only to four or five people currently using the group or
> complaints about topicality or complaints about complaints about
> topicality or complaints about complaints about complaints about
> topicality or plugging their religion or attacking their religion or
> explaining why it is not a good idea to plug a religion or attack a
> religion on Usenet or a statistical analysis of pointless discussions of
> the last month broken down by poster frequency and by newsreader and by
> original text and by any useless category you can think of or people
> posting replies that demonstrate beyond doubt that they have either not
> read or at least not understood the post to which they are replying or
> people trying to persuade you to use their rather lame excuse for an open
> source software package or people posting just to say how deeply and
> abidingly they hate everything that some other person stands for on the
> rather tenuous assumption that anyone else has the slightest interest or
> people taking a stab at posting the longest sentence without commas in the
> history of comp.programming that anyone can remember without actually
> checking on the pretext of ranting about how pointless most typical Usenet
> discussions are and then telling you that the sentence in question
> contains 337 words.
>
Were you a patent lawyer in a past life?

--
Ian Collins.

Richard Heathfield wrote:
) Well, that's true, but most typical Usenet discussions are pointless
) <snip>
) discussions are and then telling you that the sentence in question
) contains 337 words.

You have at least a thousand words to go, grasshopper.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT