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: fac41,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Date: 1997/08/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269003082 Distribution: world References: <34023FC9.59E2B600@eiffel.com> <872652486.17137@dejanews.com> <3405A268.71A8C313@brightwood.com> <3406C150.3EE5EE0E@stratasys.com> <34072C68.DAFB500E@earthlink.net> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34072C68.DAFB500E@earthlink.net> Jay Martin 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