Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:49:39 +0000
From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
Message-ID: <20041111144939.GA11489@suffields.me.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
References: <20041111142740.GD9786@suffields.me.uk>
	<Pine.LNX.4.43.0411111535181.746-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0411111535181.746-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0479955261=="
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: 2545
Lines: 77

--===============0479955261==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv"
Content-Disposition: inline


--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:43:14PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > I am willing to accept as a hypothesis that some languages may be
> > faster to write than others, but there is no more than circumstancial
> > evidence in both directions. Furthermore without a way to quantify the
> > skill of a programmer in a given language, in a manner comparable to
> > the skill of a different programmer in a different language, I don't
> > think it is possible to have real evidence either way. So you won't
> > really get much mileage out of it.
>=20
> the simple evidence is whole IT industry, especially focusing on bussiness
> oriented systems. Don't you see all these projects slowly migrating from C
> to C++, from C++ to Java or even to VisualBasic/Python?
> The truth is simple, highler-level languages are more easier to be used,
> more quickly to be written than such double-edged knife like C/C++.

Please try thinking before sending mail.

> > Subjectively, the programmer appears to be the primary factor in
> > determining productivity, not the language.
>=20
> I'm afraid you are not right. Have you ever tried modern OO-based
> languages like Eiffel

Okay, slight corrention: it is possible to design a language that
significantly *impairs* productivity, to the point where it is the
primary factor.

--=20
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBk3wDlpK98RSteX8RAmJhAJwKOYfbvnot8XIQKftig+5O6DY9rACeP4QZ
WBcm6+U+psjP8paCU4IiSV0=
=Im/D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv--


--===============0479955261==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
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/
--===============0479955261==--