2008/11/21 Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Matt Amos wrote: >>> C/C++ is not a prototype language. >> >> do you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming ? > > No I mean a language where you start scripting and others have no clue > what you are doing until it finished and it works. Other words; > Proof-of-Concept. Low level languages are not good for this, too much > distractions with memory management etc., but once you know exactly what > you want. Don't waste your time on a language that does 90% for you > sadly has no compiler to native machine code. >
Meh, "proper" languages are often over rated. Machines are cheap, developers are expensive, and code lives far longer than most people hope. Maintaining well written code is easier than maintaining crap code, and many of your "prototype" languages promote well written code. Especially when you talk about ruby on rails. The entire point is an easy to maintain code base, with MVC architecture, database schema versioning, and all the crud and boiler plate taken out of your way. Point a rails developer at a well written rails app and they can figure out what's what in very little time. C/C++ has it's place, and I'm not claiming it's not faster (or even better) for this application. But that doesn't make RoR a prototyping system. Or as a mirror for your last statement: don't waste your time on a language that compiles 90% quicker when it doesn't matter. Which leaves the important question: does it matter for OSM? (and is a full rewrite the best way of fixing it if it does) Dave _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
