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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1997/12/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 311079350 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <34A14C27.57C0@min.net> <67rjb3$pfb$1@brie.direct.ca> <34A50CAA.54AA@netup.cl> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 883418899 23085 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1997-12-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John says <> Of course the answer is that the language is defined by the standard. What is surprising is your exclamation mark at the end of a statement that should be common understanding for any programmer. Of course the language is not defined by the compiler, or any combination of tools. This is nothing new, languages have been defined by standards for a very long time. C came rather late to the standards business, but even before the ANSI C standard was approved, C was defined by pieces of paper, including for example the reference manual at the back of K&R. For anyone to think that a language is usefully defined by a compiler is to me evidence of poor training. No one should be able to get out of any CS degree program with this kind of misconception. However, as I said in my earlier message, I am afraid that this confusion is a very common one and is responsible for a huge percentage of the problems in porting code, regardless of the language. If your only knowledge of the definition of a language comes from what you find is accepted by your compiler, you can be sure that your code is unlikely to be anywhere as near portable as it should be.