Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)

[O'Connor <oconnor@apci.net>]

Ian Ward wrote:
> 
> Of course, the time taken for the compiler to spot syntactic errors
> is much less than that which a person takes. In fact, if the langauge
> syntax is cunningly enough design such that different constructs look
> sufficiently different, it will also wipe out a large proportion of
> unwitting semantic (&functional) errors as well. This feature more
> than makes up for compile times, which is one of the reasons languages
> such as the Pascal family is twice as quick in terms of man hours to
> get down to any arbitrary level of bugs. (It stands to reason, if one
> does not have to worry about the syntax, one has more time to work
> on the semantics.)
> 
> Best regards,
> Ian.

This is precisely why I enjoy Smalltalk so much.  With very few 
syntactical rules to worry about, whether I'm writing code or reading 
someone elses, I can concentrate more on the intent of the code.  "What 
needs to be accomplished" rather than "What language rules do I have to 
remember for this situation".
 
James O'Connor
oconnor@apci.net


          ##
         ##
  ########	 "He that loveth not
 ########		 knoweth not God."
     ##			--1 John 4:8
    ##
   ##
  ##
 ##