2009/6/23 Hal Vaughan <hal@halblog.com>: > > On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:18 PM, =A9=FA=C4=B1 wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:18 PM, John Hasler<jhasler@debian.org> wrote: >>> >>> =A9=FA=C4=B1 writes: >>>> >>>> yes, currently it's true, but I hope one day I will be able to take fu= ll >>>> control of my system, and modify them as i like, if I have those other >>>> language programmed softwares installed in my system, it will be hard = to >>>> maintain for me. >>> >>> If learning enough of another language to do maintainence is hard for y= ou >>> you aren't much of a programmer. Programming is not about knowing a >>> language. >> >> Yes, language is just a tool, so I want to keep my tool simple and >> powerful, I do not want so many similar tools with the same functions. > > Boy, I didn't realize that by "junior programmer" you meant you were that > inexperienced in the field. I don't know if you realize that you've just > basically said you are either unwilling or unable to understand the > different reasons for different languages. > > EACH language is a tool, and each one is a DIFFERENT tool with a DIFFEREN= T > purpose. I will give an example to deny your opinion - "a DIFFERENT tool with a DIFFERENT purpose" Sql is a language for database operation, but what microsoft doing is to use C# replacing sql, by linq. I don't like microsoft, but I like the way they developing C#, the only one language for microsoft will be C#, I guess. Then what's the only one language for linux? I think it's C/C++. > > It is rarely a whim why a programmer picks one language over another. Th= ere > are often several, if not many reasons why one language is more appropria= te > and better for a job than another is. > > But there's no point in continuing any discussion. You've made it quite > clear you're too busy being right to care what anyone more experienced ha= s > to say =E6=A1A=ACO=AC=B0=B5L=A4W=C1I=A1C