[Interest] Roland Qml

[Jonathan Purol]

On 14/07/2020 13:24, Roland Hughes wrote:
> They have no formal education with respect to computer science.

So you're implying that CS education has anything to do with the ability
to write good code?
Some of the best programmers I know, far beyond the capabilities of me,
perhaps you, and a vast majority of other coders on this planet, have no
"formal education [in] computer science".

And having taught programming to people at universities, having worked
with people who graduated as a CS bachelor or master from universities,
I can 100% assure you that education and skill form nothing more than a
correlation, and drawing the causation the way you did (amidst some very
biased generalisations) is a logical fallacy at best, and harmful
misdirection at worst.

I haven't followed the entirety of this thread (as it's split into a few
different threads for some reason).
I can understand some disdain against the "dumbing-down" of programming
nowadays and I'm personally not fond of QML (in it's current state) either.
But you suddenly jump from "JavaScript is insecure" to "medical devices
running JavaScript will kill patients". Making mistakes can happen in
every language, and I'm sure quite a few people have died because of
technical issues in c++ code as well. JavaScript might be more error
prone -- of course -- but I wouldn't really blame QML for that. If you
use JavaScript in QML for anything other than visual logic, without any
validation, unit tests, fuzzing, QA, etc. then you're a bad coder.
You're a bad coder *not* because you're from an off-shore country, *not*
because you're using JavaScript, and *not* because you're using QML.
You're a bad coder because you have made bad decisions and that happens
in every language. I've witnessed enough bad c++ Qt coders in my life to
conclude that.

sincerely,
Jonathan Purol