Re: The Lambda lambada...Why embedded SQL is becoming irrelevant and why you should s

Thanks for your comments, Charles...

Some discussion below...


"Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:N50Kh.127543$_73.11354@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:55p388F25hik9U1@mid.individual.net... 
>
> I found it very interesting. Their enthusiasm was catching.  I read  the
> book "The Little LISPer" a very long time ago (sometime in the mid 1970s I
> think) so I am not totally unfamiliar with functional programming and
> lambda expressions. I have a book on Scheme that I have not read yet and a
> whole shelf of AI books I have not got to yet. Anyway I thought that long
> ago reading was not a loss after all. I remember getting up to a
> FunctionMaker function that could create new functions.  After that it got
> so highly recursive I could not follow as I had not a LISP interpreter.
>
> Back to the video.  It sounded similiar to a just-in-time compiler that
> creates expression trees and can concatenate them and do other
> manipilations on them. The expression trees are represented as an object
> and the program deals with a reference to that object. Then there would be
> back-end programs that procees the expression trees and convert them to
> whatever you want, XML, SQL, in-memory objects, IL etc.  I guess there
> would be a separate backend for each thing. It can also break the
> processing up into multiple concurrent processes/tasks/thread, which is
> becoming more important with multiple processors.
>
> I can see how this might work on a single computer but it is less clear
> how it would work in client server applications over the internet.  As far
> as I know C#  only runs on PCs with MS Windows.

C# is tied to the DotNET framework, not to Windows. Vista comes with DotNET
version 3 installed and it is likely that future MS OSes will also lever
this framework.

I believe there is current development (outside MS) to implement DotNET on
non-MS platforms. Mono is an Open Source project that is doing this...but,
it is a work still in progress...

http://www.mono-project.com/GtkSharp

In the same way that the DotNET framework levels the playing field regarding
which language you use for development, by JITing the IL from any compliant
language compiler into CLR, all that is required to run on ANY platform is a
JIT interpreter and a CLR implementation for that platform.

Currently implementations for both Linux and Unix are under way.

[url]http://dev.mainsoft.com/Default.aspx?tabid=45&gclid=CJqH4rfD9YoCFQM8YQodqGSYjg[/ur
l]

It will therefore be possible to develop code in any of the DotNET compliant
compilers (including COBOL, if you have deep pockets...), and run it on ANY
platform.

As C# is free, easy to learn and use, has HUGE support from MS,  and is fun
to develop and debug with, it is a logical choice for DotNET development.


> I would not hold my breath waiting for it to covert the expression tree to
> java byte-code.

I doesn't need to do that; it is already in "byte code" as IL.

> How can it know how many processors are avaiable on a remote computer?

It doesn't need to. The "pipelined" code will use as many as are available
(including one only...)


>Also the operating system on the remote computer controlls the
>mult-processing.

Yes, but it responds to requests from applications... :-)

>Will it support all the favors of SQL?

If Lambdas are used, it won't need to. They are checked at compile time for
syntax. Whatever flavour you use for your expression will be checked long
before it ever gets to run. (I perceive this as similar to the OO Repository
which enables compile time compliance checking for referenced objects.)


>Will you be able to send a query to a remote computer?

As you can right now, and given that DotNET incorporates support for DCOM
and the newer "remote object", SOAP (in it's latest form, it is much more
powerful), and Web Services technologies, the answer has to be, "Yes".


>I don't know, just some questions that spring to my mind.

And good questions too... :-)

>
> I would like it better if I could use C# on any computer under any
> operating system.  I am sure it is possible to do that but I do not think
> Microsoft is interested in it running anywhere except under Windows.
>

Absolutely not true. Like many people who suffer from "tall poppy syndrome",
you may be letting your distrust of MS blind you to what is actually
happening, and demonstrably true. The source for DotNET has been made
publicly available by MS since it was first developed. The vision is exactly
what you described above: "...use C# on any computer under any operating
system." (It applies to VB.NET as well :-)). And, remember, MicroSoft make
the language and the IDE and their support through MSDN available for FREE.
I honestly don't believe they are as wicked and evil as they are painted,
but I don't think they are Saints, either... :-)


> <<below is off-topic>>
>
> I would like to learn C# sometime. I am concentrating on Java because of
> work but I fear it may be all in vain.  I told my project leader that I
> felt left out and he said "well we all do".  If he is to be believed our
> only input is to the specification process and the development will all be
> done by contractors.  I do not know who will maintain it. I am an odd duck
> as almost all programmers here are contractors and most all government
> people are something other than programmers.  I am a government
> programmer. I do not know if I would be involved in maintaining the new
> system or what. However our system will be done last and the next to last
> is scheduled now for production sometime in 2011, and they are already
> talking of that slipping.  As more and more stuff goes into production I
> see more and more maintainence problems listed on the wly systems
> availability report. There was an inch thick specification on his desk
> that he was reviewing and inside were a lot of still incomplete pages.
> The cover said it was number three of 23 such reports.  My mind boggles. I
> may retire in 2014 without our stuff ever being completed and without ever
> using java.  This happened before when I took two classes in C++ and they
> later dropped that approach.

I have encountered similar stuff when I worked for a Hospital Board many
years ago (prior to 1975). Systems were painstakingly specced and volumes of
documentation produced. There was so much that no-one could possibly read it
all. On a number of occasions we implemented processes and then found they
were incompatible with other processes and had to be re-written. The
interface incompatibilities were in the documentation (with design specs for
overcoming them) but no-one had the time or inclination to read the entire
spec before starting work...

The solution is to break work into manageable chunks and do a phased,
iterative, implementation. I like RAD, but that is a whole other ball game
:-)

As for learning Java, that really can't be a waste of time. Whether you use
it at your current employment or you use it elsewhere, it is a useful string
to your bow.

You may find that even after you retire you want to "keep your hand in".
There are applications that present themselves every day and "hobby
programming" is fun and even, sometimes, profitable. For this both Java and
C# are useful.

C# is fun, but you don't want to allocate all of your leisure time to
learning new computer programming languages... :-)

The problem with working for Government is that there is little empowerment.
It is therefore very hard to get things changed. It seems to me you are
doing the best you can in the environment you are in.

Don't worry about it.

Pete.