Even that I know of StackOverflow as a website, I haven't visited them since
a decade or so. Does this make me a bad programmer?  I even didn't know of
that survey. Maybe that's the reason of those results? 

Maybe those at StackOverflow are just those who need to copy'n'paste some
codefragments without understanding what they are doing (aka Youngsters with
10 or more programming languages on their skillset), thus a lot of
specialized languages and their programmers don't show up at that site /
survey.  Why should I ask a VFP or Lianja or Servoy questions on
StackOverflow, if there are targeted forums available with way better
answers?

wOOdy


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ProFox <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Ted Roche
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. April 2019 00:52
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [NF] StackOverflow Developer Survey Results

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:05 PM Ed Leafe <[email protected]> wrote:

> I felt that I had to put [NF] in the subject line, because (spoiler
> alert!) there is no mention of Fox in these results. Nor any xbase 
> language. Nor Xojo. Nor Servoy. Nor any of the other technologies 
> trying to lure Fox developers out of their shells.
>
> https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019


... but Python did quite well!

--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---

[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to