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: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kleidner@earthlink.net (Ken Leidner) Subject: Re: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/06 Message-ID: <3lvru0$bv5@mars.earthlink.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100937606 references: <3lmt64$stt@dplanet.p2k.cbis.com> organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3lmt64$stt@dplanet.p2k.cbis.com>, robertb@cbis.com says... >Language Efficiency A part of this question that people seemed to miss is that some languages are better to code a type of program than the same program in a different lanaguage. Its part of the reason why we have more that one language. Each lanaguage was designed to allow the programmer to define a set of "problems" easily. FORTRAN to translate mathematical formulas, COBOL for bussines, SOBOL for text searching ... 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. Ken Leidner Systems Progammer kleidner@earthlink.net