|Assessing a language firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-06)|
|Different Strokes for Different Folks (Was: Assessing a language) email@example.com (1993-01-06)|
|Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks (Was: Assessing a language) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-07)|
|Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks (Was: Assessing a language) email@example.com (1993-01-07)|
|Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks (Was: Assessing a language) firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-09)|
|Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks (Was: Assessing a language) email@example.com (1993-01-13)|
|Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks (Was: Assessing a language) firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Ludemann) (1993-01-22)|
|Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks (Was: Assessing a language) Alain.Callebaut@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (1993-01-25)|
|[1 later articles]|
|From:||email@example.com (Jonathan Eifrig)|
|Organization:||The Johns Hopkins University CS Department|
|Date:||Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:29:52 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Nicole Harvey) writes:
> I am involved in assessing a language. Does anyone know of a standard
>set of problems that I could use to judge the languages compabilities?
The Moderator adds:
>[It has long been my belief that preferences in languages is an entirely
>religious issue. Computational capabilities aren't much of an issue since
>they're all Turing equivalent. How is it for parallel multi-lingual
>object-oriented database update, to pick a few buzzwords? -John]
I agree with the moderator here, although I would call language
preference a "religious issue." I think that too many people think that a
new programming language has to be able to do everything that all the old
programming languages can in order to be useful; this results in the
crufty specifications for Common Lisp and Ada.
More importantly, I think a programming _language_ should embody a
natural programming _style_. The trend towards object-oriented languages
(C++/LOOPS) is a good example. There's nothing that can be done in C++
that couldn't be done just as well in C, with the appropriate hacking
around with function pointers, but that's not really the point. C++ makes
coding in an object-oriented style easy.
For each style there is (or should be!) an appropriate language.
Prolog makes search-based programs easy, but nobody would want to write a
numerical analysis package in it. Functional languages like pure ML are
great for manipulating quasi-static data structures, but I would hate to
write a network-flow algorithm in it.
Surprisingly, there hasn't been much work in developing
heterogenous programming environments, to support a sort of "mix and
match" approach to programming. Such tools would go a long way to
alleviating the language holy wars, I think.
Jack Eifrig (email@example.com) The Johns Hopkins University, C.S. Dept.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.