Having an automatic test suit has been mainstream for quite some time by know -- we know why and why we should do it. I personally had the luck of doing it at every workplace I ever been at. But I avent been fortunate to discover the correct way of runnin them until just a few days ago.
The command watch is a standard Linux command that repeatingly executes a command and prints the result in full screen in the terminal. I've used this lately to avoid "edit, alt-tab, up-arrow, enter, alt-tab, edit" cycles when devloping a python application, that is, to avoid having to switch to the consol I'm using to test the code and run run it.
It sounds like a small thing, but I recomend you try it. It suprisingly useful to see the result of the current code automatically when I save it.
This is similar to Mim, the build system I created some time ago. Mim could actually be extended such that it could run a script everytime the contents of a set of files (e.g., the depdendencies) changed. But since Mim isn't installed on every Linux machine, but watch is, watch has to do. :)
Showing posts with label evaluate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evaluate. Show all posts
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Blub paradox
Yesterday I read someting interesting concerning how programming languages are compared:
«[T]o explain this point I'm going to use a hypothetical language called Blub. Blub falls right in the middle of the abtractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.
And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for. And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. It doesn't even have x (Blub feature of your choice).
As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub.
When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that he in turn looks down upon Blub. How can you get anything done in Blub? It doesn't even have y.
By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. (This is probably what Eric Raymond meant about Lisp making you a better programmer.) You can't trust the opinions of the others, because of the Blub paradox: they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs.»
Check this out to read more about how to evaluate programming languages.
«[T]o explain this point I'm going to use a hypothetical language called Blub. Blub falls right in the middle of the abtractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.
And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for. And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. It doesn't even have x (Blub feature of your choice).
As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub.
When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that he in turn looks down upon Blub. How can you get anything done in Blub? It doesn't even have y.
By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. (This is probably what Eric Raymond meant about Lisp making you a better programmer.) You can't trust the opinions of the others, because of the Blub paradox: they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs.»
Check this out to read more about how to evaluate programming languages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)