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: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a498aa1404ef5d87 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful Date: 1998/07/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 376006625 References: <35AE4621.2EBC7F6A@eiffel.com> <6p83vj$657$1@news.intellistor.com> <35B79E7D.6068DCDF@eiffel.com> <6pg7fg$qhi$1@news.interlog.com> <901533851.20058.0.nnrp-04.9e980ba3@news.demon.co.uk> <35be2a94.57352308@netnews.msn.com> <6plvgl$eaf$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <35bebe5f.95187031@netnews.msn.com> <6pn9af$hqd$1@uuneo.neosoft.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 901723767 8065 bpr 206.184.139.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-07-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Pat Rogers wrote: > Dave Martin wrote: ... snip ... > > > >Personally, for the last several years i've been trying to detect my > >own hidden assumptions and biases, and nullify them. I never want to > >turn into the old dog who can't learn new tricks or becomes closed- > >minded to something simply because its different. Unfortunately I > >haven't always been successful, but i'm trying. > > That's why I'm learning Java now, and Eiffel and C++ in the past. They all > contribute something to make one a better developer. I need to take another > look at Fortran, because it sure isn't the Fortran IV I used in the old > days! I don't want to discourage anyone from learning new things, but IMO Java, Ada, C++, and Eiffel are not really all that different, I'd even say they are pretty close in the whole space of programming languages. Why not try a few really different languages, like: (1) A logic language, like Prolog or Mercury (2) A functional language, like OCaml, Haskell, or Scheme (3) An OO language with multimethods, like Common Lisp (4) Any of a number of interesting other languages, like Forth, Icon, ... This isn't meant as a disagreement with Pat Rogers. I actually like Ada and think it is worth knowing, just that if you want to stretch your mind and are not solely interested in getting a job using some particular language, it might be worth it to you to consider a wider range. -- Brian