[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla

From: Andrew Suffield
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:49:39 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:43:14PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > I am willing to accept as a hypothesis that some languages may be
> > faster to write than others, but there is no more than circumstancial
> > evidence in both directions. Furthermore without a way to quantify the
> > skill of a programmer in a given language, in a manner comparable to
> > the skill of a different programmer in a different language, I don't
> > think it is possible to have real evidence either way. So you won't
> > really get much mileage out of it.
> the simple evidence is whole IT industry, especially focusing on bussiness
> oriented systems. Don't you see all these projects slowly migrating from C
> to C++, from C++ to Java or even to VisualBasic/Python?
> The truth is simple, highler-level languages are more easier to be used,
> more quickly to be written than such double-edged knife like C/C++.

Please try thinking before sending mail.

> > Subjectively, the programmer appears to be the primary factor in
> > determining productivity, not the language.
> I'm afraid you are not right. Have you ever tried modern OO-based
> languages like Eiffel

Okay, slight corrention: it is possible to design a language that
significantly *impairs* productivity, to the point where it is the
primary factor.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' : |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]