My what a week of interesting discussions. Lets end this week on a good
and light hearted note.
Admit it. We all know the most secure programming language is Logo anyways.
<HL&N>It's hip to be 'rep 4 [ fwd 50 rt 90]'</HL&N>
Laugh. Or the world laughs at you. Have a good weekend guys.
Crispin Cowan wrote:
David Crocker wrote:
1. Is it appropriate to look for a single "general purpose" programming
language? Consider the following application areas:
a) Application packages
b) Operating systems, device drivers, network protocol stacks etc.
c) Real-time embedded software
The features you need for these applications are not the same. For
example,
garbage collection is very helpful for (a) but is not acceptable in
(b) and (c).
For (b) you may need to use some low-level tricks which you will not
need for
(a) and probably not for (c).
I agree completely that one language does not fit all. But that does not
completely obviate the question, just requires some scoping.
2. Do we need programming languages at all? Why not write precise
high-level
specifications and have the system generate the program, thereby
saving time and
eliminating coding error? [This is not yet feasible for operating
systems, but
it is feasible for many applications, including many classes of embedded
applications].
The above is the art of programming language design. Programs written in
high-level languages are *precisely* specifications that result in the
system generating the program, thereby saving time and eliminating
coding error. You will find exactly those arguments in the preface to
the K&R C book.
Crispin
--
Regards,
Dana Epp
[Blog: http://silverstr.ufies.org/blog/]
