| From: | Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [semi-OT] programming languages' evolution |
| Date: | Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:29:32 -0500 (EST) |
> Mark A. Shieh wrote:
> > > 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".
> >
> Scheme? Modula-3? Compare what *they* offer with the C standard
> libraries. *I* see the difference. :-)
Ohh... standard libraries. I took "existing libraries" at
face value. For example, we had an implementation of OpenGL that had
been ported to Scheme in out Graphics 1 class that I consider an
existing library. (We also complained enough about coding in Scheme
that they went back to C the next year)
> Ah, but then the programming style modifies the development and
> maintenance time the same as a similarly structured language would.
> In short, the language enforces base compliance. It's all the same
> in terms of mechanics. :-)
That's where I disagree. Language attempts to enforce
base compliance, but so does a minimum of computer training. It's the
programmer and his coding style, not the language. Certain languages
may suggest good coding style more than other languages, but it's
still the programmer's task to make sure they obey it.
> Just sacrifice development time for a lower maintenance TN. :-)
I just feel that this should be available to any competent
programmer no matter what language they're using, and available to a
lousy programmer in a self-documenting language by making them become
better programmers.
Mark
