| |
Good post!
Todd Lehman wrote:
> high-level** languages.
>
> ** Languages with features like closures, late binding, lambda functions,
> in-memory compilation of arbitrary code constructed on-the-fly, regular
> expression manipulation, arbitrary namespaces, and of course OO.
I agree with most all you say, but I am surprised that you consider
this:
in-memory compilation of arbitrary code constructed on-the-fly,
necessary for a language to be "high level". I rather consider it a
potential pitfall for the unwary instead of a feature. I certainly agree
that it's a sign of a good/powerful/rigorous design to be able to do it.
But I dispute that it's useful. I've not seen a situation yet where I
needed it, and I consider myself pretty good at doing clever things
programmatically.
I guess I fall into the camp that wants languages to help enforce clear
thinking. C++ was a huge step above C because it helped do that, but not
far enough of a step, because you could drop down into C any time you
liked.
I consider Pascal (one of my early favorites, and still a holder of a
special place in my heart) and Java (my current true love) canonical
examples of languages that are easy to read and that help prevent silly
mistakes while teaching their novice and journeyman coders how to think
more clearly.
I know for sure that there are Pascal haters out there who find it
confining. Yes. It's not a sysprog lang. Fine. sysproging is not for
novices anyway. Ditto Java.
But it's plenty powerful for the experienced. Our (Novera's) entire
product is written in Java. The whole thing! All the tools, the coupling
to the orb, transaction management, monitors, load balancing, schema and
metadata management, the object relational mapper, protocol converters,
everything. And it was done by people that certainly could have coded in
C++ or C or whatever they chose to... See our website.
On another note:
What do you think of the more widespread 3GL/4GL taxonomy? I'd put PERL
as a 4GL under that scheme and Java as a 3GL. (although the official
definition is much more complex, I tend to think of the distinction as
4GL being primarily for automating or glueing components or systems
together, and 3GL for doing those components... although usages vary. a
3GL can be used for gluing... and a 4GL can be used for components.)
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
NOTE: I am leaving CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please use my Voyager id for now.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) I didn't mean to say that it was necessary for a language to be "high level" but it certainly is a common property of high-level langauges (for example Lisp/Scheme, Logo, PostScript*, and Perl). (...) It certainly has a variety of mis-uses, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Perl rules!
|
| (...) Amen to that. Perl is the first general-purpose programming language I've ever used* which hasn't yet made me mad at it because it couldn't do something in a clean and straightforward way. It's amazing: I just never get mad at Perl. Instead, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
