|Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org.) (1995-09-07)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-09-13)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? Steve_Kilbane@cegelecproj.co.uk (1995-09-14)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Nicol) (1995-09-14)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-09-20)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-09-20)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (1995-09-21)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? ECE@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za (John Carter) (1995-09-21)|
|[22 later articles]|
|Date:||Wed, 13 Sep 1995 20:29:40 GMT|
>===== ACADEMIC ASSUMPTIONS - ARE THESE ALL REALLY TRUE ? ======
>* Strongly type language result in better programs.
>* Performance is a language problem.
>* Compilation is better than interpretation.
Depends on whether development time is more precious than run time,
and whether you want more error-checking done at development time or
>* Memory is free, speed is what is worth optimizing.
>* Multi-threading is better than single threading.
>* Specification and design can be performed with no knowledge of
This separates the men from the boys. Managers who haven't come up
through the technical ranks sometimes force designs that the troops
in the trenches know won't work or will require a heavy run-time,
development-time, or maintenance-time penalty. I've seen managers
run their careers onto the rocks on this issue.
>* Programming, testing, packaging are easy, design is hard.
>* Formal specifications yield correct programs.
>* Applications contain a substantial number of algorithms.
>* Industry uses ... C++, CORBA, Windows, UNIX, ...
>* Industry has better or worse tools.
>* Industry runs on wrong hardware and software platforms.
>* WYSIWYG is better for all applications.
The rest of these look pretty good. I like 'em. :-)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.