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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f645d,f7a7163813ae8672 X-Google-Attributes: gidf645d,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-05 17:13:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail From: logan@cs.utexas.edu (Logan Shaw) Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.visual,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.perl.misc Subject: Re: Best language for low IQ programmers? Date: 5 Nov 2001 19:13:27 -0600 Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin Sender: logan@charity.cs.utexas.edu Message-ID: <9s7dfn$63$1@charity.cs.utexas.edu> References: <1004990076967295@aol.com> <9s6tbl$ga2$1@hpcvnews.cv.hp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: charity.cs.utexas.edu X-Trace: news.cs.utexas.edu 1005009208 14865 128.83.144.122 (6 Nov 2001 01:13:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@cs.utexas.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 01:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.basic.visual:10636 comp.lang.c++:102025 comp.lang.java.programmer:107869 comp.object:24149 comp.lang.eiffel:4825 comp.lang.ada:15890 comp.lang.perl.misc:77024 Date: 2001-11-05T19:13:27-06:00 List-Id: In article <9s6tbl$ga2$1@hpcvnews.cv.hp.com>, wrote: >Anyway, all computer languages are the same conceptually. One either >"gets" the concept of giving a machine a list of instructions to follow, >or one doesn't. I don't know that I quite agree with that. Prolog isn't the same conceptually as assembly language. Neither is a pure functional programming language. Or maybe it is true if you think of Prolog as having an implicit "tell me whether this is true" instruction and pure functional languages as having an implicit "tell me the value of this" instruction. But that's kind of a stretch. Anyway, if the original poster is looking for a programming language for stupid people, they should check out http://www.cobolscript.com/ . - Logan -- "In order to be prepared to hope in what does not deceive, we must first lose hope in everything that deceives." Georges Bernanos