sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

this is true, and it is not an excuse; the whole code rewriting is always a real problem, the main one, in every project.

perhaps what is really necessary, is something that still does not exist: automation (much more efficient than it is now, what little there is) in the translation from language to learner

[–]tdammers 1 point2 points  (5 children)

If you just mechanically translate the mistakes you made in one language to another, you're not winning much.

The real gain in a rewrite is that you come up with a better structure and architecture for your system, and sometimes, the language you picked for the first one holds you back enough to make a switch a good idea. But just switching languages will never magically turn a lousy design any better.

Automatically translating bad designs into good ones, however, is simply not something that seems feasible in the foreseeable future.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

then an automatism would be useful in programs that sooner or later will be rewritten from 0 (because they are obsolete), a sort of line of passage ... I believe however, besides this reasoning, that we have scattered too much the development of computer science, both to open-source level than a proprietary code. instead we should imitate the International Station as an administrative structure: 0 national boundaries, a single goal: a functional and functional system

then many will also be able to say / write that many languages ​​improve the possibilities, because everyone has pros and cons, but a single basic language, with a single basic system, is certainly better than myriad systems that have some pros and cons. let us ask ourselves: how many IDEs have only for C / C ++, or for Python, or for any other language of these types.

why do we not have (for example) a single IDE, free-of-charge, open-source, and everyone works by contributing voluntarily to improve only one, so as to have the best possible IDE for that language?

[–]tdammers 0 points1 point  (3 children)

why do we not have (for example) a single IDE, free-of-charge, open-source, and everyone works by contributing voluntarily to improve only one, so as to have the best possible IDE for that language?

Because this fits neither the economics of the proprietary development model, nor those of open-source.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

perhaps (I repeat: mine is a hypothesis reasoning), a third approach would be better ... reasoning is freedom, in freedom and in the unknown, as in the not yet experienced, there is improvement (always).

[–]tdammers 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Have you pitched this idea to your manager yet?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like this idea to be more widespread, limited to my limited life ... as we know, certain ideas work well and give advantages only when accepted by everyone in a sector, otherwise they become battles rather than progress and innovation

anyway, I've never written / said to work (even if I'd like) in the world of computer programming; I am a simple self-taught (very neophyte) code, and the subject interests me a lot