On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 01:05:49PM -0400, Ian Darwin wrote:
> > "Everybody uses it so it must be good", "Nobody uses it so it must be
> > bad", these are very weak arguments, there is no such causality.
>
> I didn't say it was good (and I'm no fan of PHP!), but the notion
> of "appropriate" has many shades of meaning which the original post
> on "appropriate" did not cover. There is "appropriate" in the sense
> of "good for getting the job done, with a language that we can find
> others to maintain if our hotshot whiz kid gets run down by a truck".
Well, my fault for abusing that term, sorry. What I meant was: if
you're already using some "higher-than-C-level" programming language,
you need much less lines of code in the functional ones than in
Java or PHP (ignoring the existance or non-existance of libraries
and/or frameworks for web applications for now).
> There is "appropriate" in that we can build a blog in 200 LOC.
> There is "appropriate" in that we can write a POSIX-compatible OS in one
> (somewhat long) line of APL that nobody will ever be able to understand :-)
I know at least one person who undestands J (an APL dialect); I'll
ask him to write such an OS in that language ;-)
Ciao,
Kili
