🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <denatale-1004960822260001@grail1506.nando.net>,
denatale@nando.net (Rick DeNatale) wrote:

> AHHH! You see, there are lots of professional programmers (probably most)
> who really love being able to play for 'countless hours' playing with
> pointers and stuff. I'm a computer science graduate, and I used to love
> programming for the sake of programming. Fortunately or unfortunately, I
> outgrew that stage of my childhood.
> 
> [lot's of condescending nonsense removed]
> 
> That's why I'm a Smalltalk programmer! A proudly professional, computer
> science degree carrying, well-paid, respected in the circles which I care
> about,  Smalltalk Programmer. 
> 
> [more condescending stuff removed]
> 
> -- 
> Rick DeNatale
> Still looking for a cool signature ;-)

What are those circles which you care about?  Probably the one's who's
members who spend 'countless hours' theorizing about why all those
programmers using sticks and rocks (e.g. assembly, C, C++, insert any
widely adopted language here), rather than those using the elegant and
refined tools of the sophisticates (e.g. Smalltalk, Lisp, Prolog, insert
any language rarely used for commercial applications here) ARE PRODUCING
ALL THE PRODUCTS!

Not that I have anything against those languages that explore new
programming paradigms--they serve their purpose.  But I get real tired of
their proponents riding around on their high horses looking down on the
unwashed masses and shaking their heads as if we're the cause of all the
problems in software development.  If those other languages had all the
answers, then we'd know because they'd be behind the great and successful
products, which they rarely ever are.

Doug Bell
dbell@shvn.com