<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why I Love Programming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jqueryin.com/2010/01/22/why-i-love-programming-and-you-should-too/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jqueryin.com/2010/01/22/why-i-love-programming-and-you-should-too/</link>
	<description>A web development blog focusing on PHP, MySQL, Javascript, jQuery, and CSS.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cballou</title>
		<link>http://www.jqueryin.com/2010/01/22/why-i-love-programming-and-you-should-too/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>cballou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jqueryin.com/?p=256#comment-8</guid>
		<description>I totally understand.  That&#039;s not exactly the point I was trying to get across, however.  I just meant to imply that no matter what language you are coding in, it&#039;s all going to be interpreted bit by bit.  I didn&#039;t want to mention any particular programming language so I merely referenced the lowest possible level.  I meant to drive the point home that there is an enormous amount of complexity that goes along with programming, no matter how basic it looks at the lowest level (on and off states).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I totally understand.  That&#8217;s not exactly the point I was trying to get across, however.  I just meant to imply that no matter what language you are coding in, it&#8217;s all going to be interpreted bit by bit.  I didn&#8217;t want to mention any particular programming language so I merely referenced the lowest possible level.  I meant to drive the point home that there is an enormous amount of complexity that goes along with programming, no matter how basic it looks at the lowest level (on and off states).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://www.jqueryin.com/2010/01/22/why-i-love-programming-and-you-should-too/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jqueryin.com/?p=256#comment-7</guid>
		<description>&quot;In programming, my building blocks are merely 1s and 0s.&quot;

I&#039;m not a fan of such sayings because, honestly, how often are your building blocks &quot;actually&quot; 1s and 0s? I don&#039;t know about anyone else, but I program with logical constructs and abstractions and not with 1s and 0s. Sure, everything at a very low level functions as interactions of electrical signals which can be encoded as a sequence of 1s and 0s, but nobody programs like this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In programming, my building blocks are merely 1s and 0s.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not a fan of such sayings because, honestly, how often are your building blocks &#8220;actually&#8221; 1s and 0s? I don&#8217;t know about anyone else, but I program with logical constructs and abstractions and not with 1s and 0s. Sure, everything at a very low level functions as interactions of electrical signals which can be encoded as a sequence of 1s and 0s, but nobody programs like this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
