🚀 go-pugleaf

[First off, let me just point out that I don't work with VO and have never
 done anything with it.]

On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:27:26 GMT, Virus@my-dejanews.com <Virus@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

> Surely CA-VO is at best slow, hard to learn and, in general, an
> unfortunate mistake.  How many VO books do you see on the bookshop
> shelves?  How many VO jobs do you see advertised in the pro press?  How
> many pro programmers do we know in full time VO?  Answer to all is: very
> very few.  

To my mind the above sentiments are what separate programmers from
coders. "Hard to learn" tends to mean "I can't be bothered to learn", the
number of books available is a very dodgy metric at best, available
positions only reflects on the state of the jobs market. Nothing you say
above says anything about how good or bad VO is as a software development
tool and goes nowhere near taking into account the type of project(s)
involved and if the above points really have a bearing.

I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of good, sound technical reasons for
not using something like VO for a given project (and, on the other hand, I'd
bet there are plenty of reasons *for* using it too), however, the points you
make above come nowhere near being good, sound technical reasons.

Take your trolling to some language advocacy group.

-- 
Take a look in Hagbard's World: |     w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ |  ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ |       eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........|   dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.