Posted on 2003-07-14 08:04:43 by roy
Well everyone has the right to his/her bulls*it opinions:rolleyes:
Posted on 2003-07-14 12:39:21 by clippy
Scalablity leads itself to growth - not just project size, but also the number of impossible to diagnose errors. :grin: Abstraction layers are great for development, but should always be collapsible, imho.
Posted on 2003-07-14 14:53:40 by bitRAKE
mm.. i dont know.. maybe the perfect language never will exist.. is like when you think that you know prefect the natural language, then you cross the street and tada!!! they dont understand what are you saying

i think a perfect language will be never ocvered.. fi the natural language have some extrange things.. why not a computer language that is limited by first our own language and imagination and second 0 and 1, aparently you can comunicate in more than one way (corporal language, etc) but some times the message is like you want to be. Is near the same thing here.

Also you can do whatever with a language, manipulate internally the pointers, manipulate internally the cast and declarations... whatever.. but at the end will be like all the other languages 0 and 1.. you can not show other language to a computer can only show a diferent language for you.... :D but hey... i learn english... (very extrange sure!!)

Nice day.
Posted on 2003-07-15 18:06:42 by rea
there wont be a perfect language that fits all needs - which is why you choose a language that fits your needs.

In my opinion, the article roy posted has a lot of good points for when you're dealing with "real" applications of certain size and complexity.

Let's start by establishing some context. We're not talking small toy asm programs, a dinky little GUI, or a single high-speed algorithm. We're talking big, complex programs with hundreds of thousands of LOC, projects with lifespans of multiple years, teams of more than a few programmers, projects where other people than the original programmers will end up doing maintenance and expand functionality. (Much of this stuff is nice on smaller scale too.)

I'm not too much a fan of garbage collection - or rather, I don't like the type that has background threads running & detecting memory blocks without references; I like having some idea at what time my applications will take a hit from memory cleanup. I am, however, a firm beliver in automatic (scope based) handling of memory allocations, and I think manual alloc/dealloc is a bad and error-prone thing.

While I think it's stupid to remove pointer-fiddling capabilities from a language just to make it safe, I do think that pointer fiddling can cause serious problems - it's best kept in the inner guts, lowest level, machine specific part of your application. Abstraction is a wonderful thing!

I'm not saying C++ is the best for all this, it certainly has it's flaws. I happen to be rather biased towards it, though, as I've been using it for a while :). And when used properly, you can get some pretty nifty stuff going. And thanks whatever_deity it's still not higher level than you still have a high degree of control, and a good idea what's happening, and that it's very easy to plug in external code - ie, assembly.
Posted on 2003-07-16 02:01:28 by f0dder

I really like the argument that Dylan is Lisp.
Dylan looks nothing like Lisp other than it is a dynamic language.
Randy Hyde
Posted on 2003-07-16 22:38:01 by rhyde