PiedDroit Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I don't think that anybody here argued that a certain algorithm cannot be accomplished with a certain language. I'd say that arguing FORTRAN is better for CFD, or C++ is more "powerful" without qualifying under which aspects it is, may fall under that definition. Right tool for the job doesn't mean "powerful" ;) If we come back to DCS, if their code base is entirely in C++, then staying in C++ is the best choice when it comes to delays because you don't have to rewrite everything. If we imagine that DCS was written in C#, then continuing in C# would be wiser, etc, etc. Nobody says that a language is better (or more powerful), just that one might be more appropriate than others to stay within parameters.
Buzzles Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I'd say that arguing FORTRAN is better for CFD, or C++ is more "powerful" without qualifying under which aspects it is, may fall under that definition. Considering I raised the CFD/Fortran/C++ point, I don't see where in my previous statements I've stated it's better. All I said was the language has its uses and gave a rough example in context of DCS. The statement itself was a rebuttal of a post implying that older and unimproved languages were to be avoided by pointing out that the two examples used, Cobol and Fortran are still being upgraded. That all said, I'm now tempted to go and see if I can find any decent examples where people have put algorithms to the test for modern implementations of C++ and Fortran as I'm curious what the results will be. Last time I did any reading along those lines was hunting for C/C++/C# and Java comparisons. That was interesting. Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here!
PiedDroit Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Considering I raised the CFD/Fortran/C++ point, I don't see where in my previous statements I've stated it's better. All I said was the language has its uses and gave a rough example in context of DCS. The statement itself was a rebuttal of a post implying that older and unimproved languages were to be avoided by pointing out that the two examples used, Cobol and Fortran are still being upgraded. That all said, I'm now tempted to go and see if I can find any decent examples where people have put algorithms to the test for modern implementations of C++ and Fortran as I'm curious what the results will be. Last time I did any reading along those lines was hunting for C/C++/C# and Java comparisons. That was interesting. You can read that, there are some benchmarks (in the comments) here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13078736/fortran-vs-c-does-fortran-still-hold-any-advantage-in-numerical-analysis-thes
sobek Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 I am sure there are some non-technical people reading this who may be benefited by the side-point I brought to the discussion. Fair enough. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
upupandaway Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Take a look at the experimental F-16 flight model testbed that's floating around. It's programmed in C++ AFAIK, though not by ED. Hey, yeah. I remember that project. Sure, I´ll check it out. Thx [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Deedle, deedle!
Buzzles Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) I wonder if even today's graduates in Computer Science know about basic concepts such as Turing-completeness. Well, actually I don't wonder, since I get to interview some of them and I see first-hand they don't. As for people knowing that, the question is do you need to for most average programming roles? Unlike knowledge of data structures + related algorithms (including graph theory) or computational complexity, which do crop up and actually have practical uses, I can't say I've ever needed to apply anything I've learnt about Turing-Completeness in the roles I've had thus far. From my perspective, I think there's been a bit of a shift from Universities to producing employable graduates with commercially desirable skill sets rather than producing graduates with a strong knowledge of their subject (who may then lack commercially desirable skills) which I think reflects a cultral shift where people don't see education as a goal in of itself, but see it as a step to success in their career. I think that's due to people looking for the ROI on their education, especially with its ever increasing costs. If you look at it in that light, you could see why learning theoretical concepts does get sidelined. Edited June 21, 2015 by Buzzles Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here!
StrongHarm Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 It's simply the difference between 'Programmers' and 'Script Kiddies'. Evolving into object oriented languages is a good thing, just like evolving past having to manually allocate IRQs and DMAs is for hardware.. however, when programmers stop caring about the how and why of the libraries they're stitching together.. they become 'a head chef heating up frozen dinners'. Luckily we don't have to worry about that with ED. As a tech exec/mil aviation vet who's worked with them I can tell you that these are professionals not only in programming, but also in usability, aviation, and military structure. They do care about the details. This should be obvious to anyone who's watched DCS evolve over the last decade. The complexity of what they do is staggering. I assure you, you're in very good hands; and the upcoming leap in the evolution of DCS will produce silence from anyone who thinks otherwise. It's a good thing that this is Early Access and we've all volunteered to help test and enhance this work in progress... despite the frustrations inherent in the task with even the simplest of software... otherwise people might not understand that this incredibly complex unfinished module is unfinished. /light-hearted sarcasm
Recommended Posts