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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,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
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.
Date: 1997/12/31
Message-ID: <34AA810D.42F85E50@mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 311681753
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net>
 <dewar.883418599@merv> <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net>
 <68du36$l10$1@darla.visi.com>
X-Server-Date: 31 Dec 1997 17:30:31 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: keithmur@mindspring.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
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: 1997-12-31T17:30:31+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


David Thornley wrote:
[snip good stuff]
> 
> Think of the standard as what you can count on in the language.  The
> actual language a given compiler will accept is different, of course,
> and the range of C "dialects" increases with every release with a
> new feature or pragma or whatever.  If you are writing a particular
> program for use with one version of one compiler on one system
> (and I haven't done that in a *long* time), you can go wild with
> the extensions.  If you might want to reuse some of your code
> sometime, be careful with them.
> 
And remember, we tend to underestimate the range of platforms and time
frame within which code will be forced to run.  Witness this little
thing called the Y2K problem...