| From: | Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [semi-OT] programming languages' evolution |
| Date: | Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:34:31 -0500 (EST) |
> Mark A Shieh wrote (on the old server):
> Perhaps we should break this down for use with other languages:
That's how I'd work things out. However, VR2 is the only
rulebook I haven't read through carefully, since I still feel that
decking should be simplified to less than a half dozen rolls, or
should be done by NPCs. :P (That and Tir Na Nog. I need Tir Na Nog,
of all things, to complete my sourcebook collection...Tir Na Nog, a
1st edition softcover, a 2nd edition hardcover, and a BABY...)
> Interpreted languages allow faster development
> Compiled executables allow faster execution
> Large existing libraries allow faster development
The key is for these libraries to come standard with the
language, and you can treat these as shared. 3rd party libraries
don't have as many of these benefits, but all languages of note have
"large existing libraries".
> Shared libraries shrink executable size (usually meaning access to
> standard OS functions)
> Self-documenting code increases development time, but decreases
> maintenance time (things like declaring the type of all variables,
> even if you don't really have to)
I haven't noticed this to be the case. All self-documenting
code does is force you to produce minimal documentation. If you did
that anyways, it doesn't make a difference.
> Low-level languages produce smaller, faster executables and take longer
> to write and maintain
> High-level languages produce slower, larger executables but are
> faster to write and maintain
> OO - difficult to quantify (you can write in an OO manner without
> having an "OO" language). I'll try to use this responsibly. :-)
In addition, OO is generally a feature. You don't have to use
most of OO if you don't want to. I'm not sure it has enough of an
effect on development to make an effect in SR terms.
You may also want to see if you can make platform independence
worthwhile. LISP and Java are the two most independent languages I
know of, while ASM and VisualWhatever are the least. :) Maybe you
could oversimplify and claim that all Fuchi decks are compatible and
run the same software.
Oh, umm... uhh, all, uhh, all Novatech decks are compatible
and run the same software, and have a 95% chance of running Renraku
software, and a 100% chance of running all Novatech subsidiary soft...
nevermind.
> So, some of the languages I've used (I'll try to stick to the most
> common usage - most people don't use a C interpreter, for example,
> although at least one exists):
>
> ASM compiled, very low-level
^^^^^^^^
Heh. barely...
> C compiled, libraries, shared, declared, low-level
^^^^^^^^
Declared? You never defined what you think you get out of a declared
language. (What do you mean by declared, anyways, strongly typed?)
> Java interpreted, compiled, libraries, mid-level, OO
> Modula-3 compiled, declared, mid-level, OO
> Pascal compiled, libraries, shared, low-level
> Scheme interpreted, libraries, mid-level
I thought Scheme compiled, just like LISP. It's been quite a
while since I've used it though, so I'm not sure any more.
LISP interpreted, compiled, libraries, OO, mid-level
[Oh, you noticed the similarities between Java and LISP too, eh? :) ]
> SQL interpreted, declared, high-level
> VBasic interpreted, compiled, libraries, shared, mid-level
<cough> There's no way I can think of VBasic as anything but a
high-level language. I think it has to do with the ability to churn
out VB code at record speed, and the performance issues I've seen with
VB apps.
Mark
