Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake)

[jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <34072C68.DAFB500E@earthlink.net> Jay Martin <jaymmartin@earthlink.net> writes:

> Jon S Anthony wrote:
> > 
> > Sounds good to me.  I note here that I really don't have a love affair
> > with any programming language.  Put another way, I feel they all suck
> > one way or another and that they need to be evaluated for each context
> > to see which one sucks the least for that context of use. 
> 
> Seems reasonable.  My "roots" are in "programming in the large
> with "non-brilliant programmers" so I prefer "anal", "hand holding",
> "strongly typed" and simple languages.  Though I would love

That's quite reasonable for that sort of situation.  No argument.

> to see my "beliefs" challenged by say stellar improvements in
> productivity studies using more "loose" languages on projects
> consisting of say a few million lines of code and heh "room
> temperature" programming IQs.

As you've pointed out in the past - even if this were true, the chance
of getting verifying studies showing it is about as likely as being
hit by a meteorite...


> >  I also
> > favor (heresy of heresies) multi-language development in those (many,
> > imo) cases where it makes sense. 
> 
> Multi-language development projects can be a pain and usually
> more languages means even more pain. 

Yes, I know that's the traditional argument.  But shoehorning
inappropriate work into a language model not really supportive of it
is even worse.  Now, I don't claim you should have dozens of languages
or something - but 2 (or maybe even three in some cases) is not that
big of a deal.


> > IMO, there are many perspectives from which it is not even
> > remotely close to this. Take expressivity for example.  Compared to
> > CL/CLOS, Eiffel is about as expressive as the original BASIC.
> 
> It seems to me if you are doing "prototypes", short lived programs
> and small programs, etc, then expressivity is a desirable
> feature.

Absolutely.  But the (IMO extreme) importance of this in prototypes
(and prototypes /= final work) is largely unrecognized to the
detriment of subsequent quality in the "manufactured" version.


> As you go into "a programming the large" situation, then
> "expressivity" has its costs.

In general I think this is quite true.  But I don't see this as being
in any sort of conflict with my position.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari