Message-ID: <41933947.2000505@iv.ro>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:04:55 +0200
From: Jani Monoses <jani@iv.ro>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041012)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
References: <20041107234609.7bf0abfe@delta.hk.office.outblaze.com>	<tnxlldcbqm1.fsf@arm.com>	<D4D5B1A3-31DC-11D9-B0B3-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>	<1099995711.2900.84.camel@stargate>	<20041110204049.GD5978@suffields.me.uk>
	<20041111093245.GY721@vagabond>
In-Reply-To: <20041111093245.GY721@vagabond>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1204
Lines: 33
Jan Hudec wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 20:40:49 +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:21:51AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>
>>>I also agree that programs look much nicer and easier to
>>>write in a high level language.
>>
>>This is also a feature of programmers, not languages.
> 
> 
> There is an interesting paper by Paul Graham. He has a hypothesis, that
> a programmer can write about the same number of tokens in a unit of
> time, no matter what language he is writing them in (or little matter).

Not just Paul Graham, that's old news. It's in the 30 year old 'the mythical man month' too.

> Now that would mean, that programming is more efficient in a higher
> language. The higher here means it can do more work with one statement.
> 
I agree.
I think Andrew was exagerrating to make the point which is often missed that the language 
alone is not enough. Some people can write more beatiful x86 asm code than other can 
java/python/you name it.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/