Subj : Re: future?
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Wed Sep 07 2005 08:06 am

Phlip wrote:
> johny_cage wrote:
>
> > Myself I've done few things in c++, object pascal, nasm, and I think
> > that I should learn more, because even if I would be great in this
> > languages, there would be many persons on my place, who can do this at
> > the same or above level.
>
> Dynamic languages will take over most of the higher levels (GUI, database,
> glue). Python, Ruby, and Smalltalk show the way here.
>
> Generated and statically-proven languages will take over the lower levels
> (drivers, compilers, engines). Ada's SPARKS system is the leader here.

I'm not sure about compilers, they aren't really low level.

> Both will support testing better. For example, if this fails
>
>     assert "foo" != bar(3)
>
> the program will print out the file and line of that assert, the name of
> each argument to !=, the != itself, and the value of each argument; and will
> provide the option to invoke the debugger at that line.
>
> You can't get that today - languages are not yet reflective enough - and you
> won't get it by creating a magic 'assert' keyword and adding those abilities
> to it, custom. You should get it by adding more abilities to the compiler,
> so other code can use those abilities too.

Are you talking about the production system or the developer's system?
Developers systems can often do that.  In lisp production systems can
also do that if they're built in the right way.

.