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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3734d251d92e2b1e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Jonas Nygren Subject: Re: Experiment Proposal re Languages Date: 1996/10/24 Message-ID: <326F5E48.5FBA@ehs.ericsson.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191711871 references: <32702431.DE6@dynamite.com.au> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Ericsson Hewlett-Packard Telecommunications AB mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: ehsjony@ehs.ericsson.se newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) Date: 1996-10-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I believe I saw something similar, to what Alan describes below, in the comp.lang.functional some year(s) ago. I can't remember what languages were included in the excersise more than C and some functional language. The C code was never completed I believe and the functional language, perhaps Haskell, were the most efficient in terms of man hours spent and lines of code needed. Perhaps somebody else have a reference to this experiment? /jonas Alan Brain wrote: > > Re Language Wars. > > It's my contention that not all languages are created equal. That some > have definite advantages over others, all other things being equal. For > example, and to be non-contraversial, programming in binary is likely to > be less productive than in C, in general. And a language specifically > tailored to a problem domain is likely to be better than any > general-purpose language. > > So I'd like to try an experiment. > > ---------------------- <> <> How doth the little Crocodile > | Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail? > | Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM > ---------------------- o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo > By pulling Maerklin Wagons, in 1/220 Scale