On 2007-07-10, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/07/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sebastian Sylvan wrote: >> > That might eliminate the concurrency imperative (for a while!), but it >> > doesn't adress the productivity point. My hypothesis is this: People >> > don't like using unproductive tools, and if they don't have to, they >> > won't. >> > >> > When "the next mainstream language" comes along to "solve" the >> > concurrency problem (to some extent), it would seem highly likely that >> > there will relatively soon be compilers for it for most embedded >> > devices too, so why would you make your life miserable with C in that >> > case (and cost your company X dollars due to inefficiency in the >> > process)? >> >> ...because only C works on bizzare and unusual hardware? > > By what magic is this the case? Hardware automatically supports C > without the efforts of compiler-writers?
No, of course not. But the most popular architectures support C with /much smaller/ efforts of compiler writers. -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
