|[6 earlier articles]|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction email@example.com (2006-11-01)|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction firstname.lastname@example.org (Brooks Moses) (2006-11-01)|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction email@example.com (Walter Banks) (2006-11-01)|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction firstname.lastname@example.org (fermineutron) (2006-11-04)|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction email@example.com (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-11-05)|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction firstname.lastname@example.org (Gary Duzan) (2006-11-05)|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction email@example.com (Marco van de Voort) (2006-11-08)|
|Re: Languages of multiple abstaction firstname.lastname@example.org (Gene) (2006-11-08)|
|From:||Marco van de Voort <email@example.com>|
|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|
On 2006-11-06, Gary Duzan <firstname.lastname@example.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 :-)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.