On 10/26/07, Christian Seberino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bob La Quey wrote: > > > One is using C functions and libraries that do mostly > > the same thing that the scripting language is doing. > > In some ways it is more economical intellectually to > > simply stay in C. Multi hundred line programs do _not_ > > have to be inpenetrable if they are well written. > > Let's take this line of reasoning to its extreme... Why not just stay in > assembly if you got a bucket full of useful assembly routines? > > Chris
Mainly because you lose machine portablity. In fact I have seen Forth based code that went from a high to a low level very effectively. Admittedly that is rare. Admittedly it requires an exceptionally skilled programmer. Forth BTW has been characterized as a macro assembler for a two stack machine. Not IMHO a bad characterization. It was intended as a put down, but the person who issued the "put down" had no idea how powerful a context sensitive i.e. two stack machine could be ... See http://www.amazon.com/Aspects-Theory-Syntax-Noam-Chomsky/dp/0262530074 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy#The_hierarchy http://www.chomsky.info/articles/195609--.pdf BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
