(because you have to load objects in order to get pointers to functions which then may be called on those objects whereas in structured programming you eliminate those steps and just call the functions directly--it is a case of indirect vs. direct).

Only virtual functions work this way. Non-virtual functions are just as direct as calling a regular function with a struct as its first argument.

They are both slow

A good Java/.NET programmer can easily beat the average C/C++ monkey. A language is only as good as its users.

QWERTY was designed to slow typists down (on typewriters, so as to not get the keys stuck)

Wrong. Qwerty was designed to spread the keys in a way that common sequences would not get stuck. This actually allowed typists to type faster, since they didn't have to worry about getting stuck.

I ask you to learn Dvorak, use it for a week, then go back to QWERTY if not fully satisfied

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

My fingers thanked me over time By personal experience I will have to say it really does ease finger stress.

I don't have any physical defects, so I never have RSI-problems anyway. Not with typing, and not with guitar playing. And I am quite speedy both ways, and been doing it for ages.
I have never encountered stress-related problems, so I have no gain with Dvorak.

contrary to what has been written (that you can't competently learn BOTH QWERTY and Dvorak)

That's not what I said. I said that if you measure the fastest typing speed with Dvorak, that could be due to the fact that you use that the most, and are not as trained with Qwerty.

Refusing to code for any OS except for whichever one is near and dear to you

I find that an interesting issue actually... What if your company decides to move from Windows to linux, for example, and you just have to follow suit...
I would not like it at all, because I am used to the Windows-tools, and I have never been able to find workable equivalents for linux. This makes developing for linux a tedious, slow and expensive job for me. I wouldn't like it if I was forced to code like that. It would severely impact the level of enjoyment at the office for me.
Posted on 2004-06-10 03:59:43 by Scali
There is a reason the and is there;)

Read what I wrote again. "Refusing to code for any OS except for whichever one is near and dear to you and calling anyone who programs for any other OS 'stupid' is arrogant." Provided your reasons are valid for not wanting to code for any but a certain OS, it is not necessarily arrogance. If, however, you both refuse to code for any but one OS and think of coders of other OSes as less intelligent than coders of whichever OS you code for, then, yes, that is arrogance.

A personal example is in order.:D I once knew a guy who knew PowerPC assembly language and who exclusively programmed software for Macintoshes. I had asked him where I could find a good Windows API guide. He then retorted with "Do you think I'm stupid?". Keep in mind he did not know a lick of x86 assembly language, had never programmed on Windows, and was extremely elitist and anti-Microsoft. His assumption was that anyone who programs a Windows program must be "stupid" and that, if they weren't, they would be programming for Linux, UNIX, or Macintosh.
Posted on 2004-06-10 04:44:03 by ShortCoder
I didn't mean to respond to your statement directly...
But I just expressed my concern about this issue, since these days there is a lot of talk of migrating from one system to another. And I don't think the people making such decisions would take this into consideration.

Your friend reminds me of something that I have said for a long time... I used to have an Amiga (yes I'm forced to use PCs aswell, it's not my 'native' platform, nor my platform of choice :)), and the games and demos and things were generally of better quality than on other platforms...
I think it is a form of natural selection. The people that are the most skilled, experienced. talented, etc. would specifically choose an Amiga, because it offered them the best features. It is the reason why I bought one at the time anyway.
I also think the revolution for PCs came when the 486 with localbus was introduced, and Amiga-people started to migrate to PCs and develop games and demos there (the Amiga platform had not been updated in years, and 486s were actually more powerful than the Amigas, finally).

I don't get why Windows programmers would be stupid though. It's not like programming requires a different amount of skill for Windows than for any other regular platform, whether you like Microsoft or not.
Personally I think anti-Microsoft people are "stupid" ;)
Posted on 2004-06-10 05:20:25 by Scali
When I used to run WindowsME, the .Net framework did slowdown the system greatly. With XP I haven't noticed any difference.
Posted on 2004-06-10 17:39:27 by SpooK
WinME doesn't need .NET to slow the system down greatly. It can do that all by itself.
Posted on 2004-06-10 17:41:44 by Scali
Windows ME is a fine operating system, and I'll not hear a bad word said against it!!!

.NET could well become a good, and useful tool. At the moment it does look a little immature, for instance I've seen an app crash, leaving the main framework process in some kind of busy state chewing all the processor. But it's early days yet, and I'm sure Microsoft will improve it.
Of course, I'm opposed to it because it's not a nativly run application, so as an assembly programmer I feel it is morally reprehencible :tongue:

Posted on 2004-06-10 17:49:55 by Mirno