On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The referenced article makes some interesting observations about the library
> question. All of the script programmers used the hash tables built into the
> language. Java and C++ have similar functionality in their libraries, but
> none of the Java or C++ programmers used them. It doesn't look like a gray
> area to me.
Good point, and I did find this comment very interesting too. For
C++, I can even understand it given how the "standard" library really
isn't (i.e., it changes too often, is generally incompatible between
compilers, and sometimes isn't even installed with the compiler). I'm
a little more puzzled by the fact that Java developers didn't use its
standard classes, given how much better integrated these basic data
structures are with most documentation and development environments.
But in any case it only strengthens my point: even if you include
libraries, MetaCard still wins because that functionality is so much
more "ready to hand" than it is in the other languages.
(snip)
> My own philosophy is that libraries are fair game, since nearly all
> applications written any language make substantial use of them. It's
> also the only rational position WRT MetaCard because so much of the
> "language" is really just calls to library routines. The advantage of
> MetaCard WRT those other languages therefore comes from its more
> complete "library", and the fact that since it's more tightly coupled
> with the language, it's much easier to learn and use than libraries in
> other languages.
> Regards,
> Scott
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
