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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public From: Charles R Martin Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1997/12/30 Message-ID: <34A93A48.EF116CF9@connix.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 311389051 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <34A14C27.57C0@min.net> <67rjb3$pfb$1@brie.direct.ca> <34A50CAA.54AA@netup.cl> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> <01bd147e$11496760$6a28b4cf@carla.ici.net> <34A92EC7.8AA616F9@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Connix - The Connecticut Internet Exchange Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1997-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Jeffrey Templon wrote: > > > > "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes: > > > > > No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it > > > defined by any piece of paper. A language is defined by usage. A > > > combination of compilers and the standard. > > > > I'd guess this opinion is generated by doing the majority of one's > > work on the same platform, possibly even using the same development > > tools, whenever you use C. > ... > > I sometimes think that every programmer should be required to port a > large program to its second platform before doing any new code. > Preferably, the first platform should differ in word size, endianness, > and general software heritage (e.g. UNIX vs. MSWindows vs. VMS) from > the new target. There is nothing quite like this experience for an > enhanced appreciation the value of standards. Years ago, I helped teach an undergrad software engineering this-is-what-it's- like-in-the-real-world-kiddies course at Duke. We included an assignment in which the students had to perform maintenance on an existing PL/I program in order to add new functionality. (It was a reasonably well-structured program on which I had [hee hee] removed almost all comments and somewhat obfuscated the variable names -- a lot like trying to maintain a lot of C code.) years later, students I run in to STILL tell me that it was the only class they had that prepared them for real life. (They're wrong -- the data structures class and other such just aren't as obvious in their effects, but that's another posting.) Eventually, the faculty member who owned the course didn't get tenure, and the course was taken over by a guy who felt that "software engineering" was best taught by writing the fastest program to find discontinuities in the REAL type.