[ILUG] Which language?
Padraig.Brady at compaq.com
Fri Sep 1 15:51:50 IST 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smelly Pooh [mailto:plop at redbrick.dcu.ie]
> Sent: 01 September 2000 13:09
> To: ilug at linux.ie
> > > C and C++ are very powerful and can give much greater performance and
> > > scalability on _large_ systems, but they come at the price of making
> > > it easy to mess up big time.
> > I agree. In general the more flexible something is, necessarily
> > the more complex it is. In other words there is no free lunch.
> Not necessarily, look at the RISC vs. CISC debates, even in language terms
> the most simplistic are the most flexible. Scheme is a good example, good
> for all levels of programming, scripting and embedding, extendable via
> written macros to include object orientation, loop structures, exception
> handling and so on, with a more complex language aforementioned
> might already be there, but it'd be a lot harder to adapt the language to
> ideas as readily as with a simple language like Scheme.
This is not what I meant by flexible.
> I'll concede that you might be using the word flexibility to describe such
> things as being able to handle memory yourself, access low level stuff
> kernel APIs or inline assembly and so forth, although I consider that
> not flexibility.
Yep, that's what I mean. Yes control is a better word.
Lower levels give you more control for creating the logic
to manipulate bits (of data), which is all you're doing
at the end of the day.
More information about the ILUG