Re: Languages of multiple abstaction

Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
8 Nov 2006 00:18:37 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction torbenm@app-0.diku.dk (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu (Brooks Moses) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2006-11-01)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction free4trample@yahoo.com (fermineutron) (2006-11-04)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-11-05)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction gduzan@acm.org (Gary Duzan) (2006-11-05)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2006-11-08)
Re: Languages of multiple abstaction gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2006-11-08)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 Nov 2006 00:18:37 -0500
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
References: 06-10-126 06-11-006 06-11-014 06-11-023
Keywords: design

On 2006-11-06, Gary Duzan <gduzan@acm.org> wrote:
>=>for specialized tasks such as scientific computing, it is unlikely
>=>that the program will ever be used after its done its job, like
>=>protein folding and other highly specialized apps.
>
> I believe the main point about C is that it is "the devil you
> know" versus the one you don't. If you're familiar with C and know
> it can do the job, often it is easier to go ahead and use it.


I wonder why C is so perfect then. I still go through this process that you
describe with each new C compiler :-)



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.