From:	Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject:	[semi-OT] programming languages' evolution
Date:	Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:58:20 -0500

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)
>
OK, OGL may be "large" from the viewpoint of executable size, but it's
a very narrow area. The C standard libraries cover everything from
files to user interaction to string manipulation. On top of *that*,
just about every library ever written is accessible from C. C has,
IMO, the best library support of any language.

> > 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.
>
If it won't compile unless you declare your variables, you have to
declare your variables. Yes, programming style matters a whole heap,
but most languages enforce at least some basic style.

> > 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.
>
That's what my point was. If you take more time for development,
you can decrease the TN for maintenance. Certain languages, however,
will *force* the programmer to spend X extra time on this "enforced
documentation". If the programmer is willing, they can spend as much
time as they like - this is just a minimum standard.

James Ojaste