Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:15:12 +0100 |
| Organization: | virginmedia.com |
| References: | <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="53509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | design, history |
| Posted-Date: | 10 Apr 2018 11:09:55 EDT |
| Content-Language: | en-US |
George,
>>> Modern popular languages are neither powerful nor easy to learn.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for this?
>
> I disagree about "easy to learn" - there are plenty of languages that
> are easy to learn. But as to the question of "power" ...
Powerful and easy to learn is a claim that proponents of every language
make. It is a marketing statement.
If you ask them how their language can be more powerful than other
Turing complete languages, hey invariably switch to saying that it's
easy to write powerful programs (whatever they might be).
Something like 30 languages per year get non-trivial implementations.
So the question to ask is, how does your language compare to the
30 languages created last year? They invariably have not checked
out last year's languages. Then ask about comparing against the 30
from the year before, and so on.
Inventing languages is invariably vanity research. Fine, but let's
not take anything claimed seriously.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.