Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
In-Reply-To: <20041111100931.GB11392@hezmatt.org>
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>
	<20041111100931.GB11392@hezmatt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6E1DC26B-340C-11D9-9D7F-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: darcs vs tla
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:06:37 -0800
To: GNU Arch Users <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: 2642
Lines: 70

On Nov 11, 2004, at 2:09, Matthew Palmer wrote:

> Assuming equal competency in each language, it seems reasonable.  
> There is a
> converse, however -- higher level languages typically have more takens,
> which means means that competency in a HLL will be lower for the same 
> amount
> of study effort and experience.

	I'm not sure about this.  python doesn't seem to have more reserved 
words than C.  Then you have the special characters:   = + * / [] {} () 
: ^ % # " """ '   (many of which are the same as many other languages).

> Andrew's comment wasn't about productivity, it was about readability 
> and
> maintainability.  Having seen code in a lot of languages, I agree with 
> him
> that programmers can make an equal mess in any language.  Touting a 
> language
> because it supposedly easier to write neat code will get nowt but a 
> hollow
> laugh from me.

	You're looking at it the wrong way.  I don't think anybody's 
suggesting there's a language that people can't make ugly code in, but 
it's been my experience that well-written code in a high level language 
is far easier to read than well-written code in a lower level language.

	Or, more specifically.  It's easier to understand what five lines of 
well written text means than twenty lines of well written text.

	I have been going through some way, way excessively complicated java 
code from someone who attempted to add as much obligatory abstraction 
as possible and can say for sure that I've had an easier time following 
disassembled saturn code in the past as a less knowledgeable coder.


On Nov 11, 2004, at 3:07, Yann Droneaud wrote:

> "it can do more [improper, invalid, faulty, bad] work with one 
> statement"
>
> Higher languages makes bigger mistakes, low level languages makes a 
> lot of
> small mistakes, so the results are generally the same.
> Only the programmer and his mind make a difference.

	Wow, this argument reminds me of a programmer at my last company whom 
I had to convince that reuse was good.  You see, he thought that if 
code were reused, then someone could go and introduce a bug into the 
reused library and affect all kinds of things, but if every program 
reproduced the world that would be impossible.  Obviously, if a bug was 
found in the pasted code (which it invariably was), it was a much 
larger problem.

	Likewise, would you rather fix one broken line of code, or 100?

-- 
Dustin Sallings


_______________________________________________
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/