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

[mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel)]

O'Connor (oconnor@apci.net) wrote:
: 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".

And by doing so turns what would otherwise be superficial syntactic or
linguistic errors into programs with run-time bugs. 

``Youse pays yer money and youse takes yer choice.''

That is a complaint have re C++:  nightmare programs from hell are dense
in the space of dream programs.
  
: James O'Connor
: oconnor@apci.net


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

--
Matthew B. Kennel/mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/ 
*NO MASS EMAIL SPAM* It's an abuse of Federal Government computer resources
and an affront to common civility.