On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:26:29 -0600, "Gabriel Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 15:02 -0600, Stuart Jansen wrote: > > So no, not all languages are equal. > > This smells like the language snobbery that we had at the plug meeting a > while back. It's all about ego (some egos being *quite* large). If you > can't convince your nerdy friends that you're smart then what do you > have?
It's been well-demonstrated that some languages enable greater productivity than others. For example, "An empirical comparison of C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl" (http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprt_computer2000.pdf). See in particular the "total time for programming [hours]" graph on page 6. Dismissing the almost self-evident assertion that all languages are not equal as "snobbery" baffles me. Sure, you can bring out the irrelevant "as long as they are both turing complete, who cares" but here in the real world, some languages are clearly better than others. Sendmail configuration is turing complete, after all. :) (http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/sendmail-as-turing-machine.txt) -Jonathan .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
