On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:21 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Bottom line: a programming language is nothing more than a way of expressing a program, and is not bound to a particular implementation. As such, discussions about the pros and cons of various approaches to execution models are really not a language debate, and given how religious people are about their languages, doesn't serve the discussion terribly well.
This is a very good point, which I missed completely.I really do believe that for most work, the choice of language should be dictated by suitability to the problem (and, to an extent, by developer familiarity).
I've been working on a set of command-line utilities for managing our LDAP services at work in perl, primarily because there's a lot of text wrangling going on, and secondarily because everybody here is comfortable with perl. I suppose I could have just as easily done it in Ruby, Python, PHP (though it somehow bothers me that PHP can be used for CLI stuff now), Tcl/Tk, or whatever else.
I suppose I really _could_ have done it all in C, but that just seemed like far more pain than was really necessary.
Gregory -- Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
