From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Language Efficiency
Date: 1995/04/06
Message-ID: <1995Apr6.095816.9598@eisner.decus.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100937960
references: <3lmt64$stt@dplanet.p2k.cbis.com> <3lvru0$bv5@mars.earthlink.net>
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol
Date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3lvru0$bv5@mars.earthlink.net>, kleidner@earthlink.net (Ken Leidner) writes:

> I think that a "good" programmer in a given language has more to do with it 
> than what the language is, unless the language just can't support the 
> problem at all.  An understanding of what the compiler is going to do has a 
> lot to do with what the code comming out of the back side looks like.

Unfortunately that is true for a lot of compilers, but if a
programmer actually writes a high level language program (as
distinguished from writing a low level language program with
a high level language compiler), a good optimizing compiler
should be able to make up for any lack of knowledge which
the programmer has about compiler behaviour.

Not to pick on Fortran, but just to pick on Fortran programmers :-),
it has been said that someone with 20 years of experience just
programming Fortran can readily adapt to _any_ computer language
and write working programs that still look like Fortran.

Larry Kilgallen