Received: from spf3.us4.outblaze.com (spf3.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.25]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iABMUjUY004631 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:30:46 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf3.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98D753F92 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:26:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSNXY-0001uG-Tu for migo@homemail.com; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:35:40 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSNX1-0001tx-3O for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:35:09 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CSNX0-0001th-0h for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:35:06 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CSNWz-0001tQ-Mi for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:35:05 -0500 Received: from [150.101.200.66] (helo=gryphon.hezmatt.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CSNOM-000522-I6 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:26:11 -0500 Received: from mpalmer by gryphon.hezmatt.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CSNNj-0006CK-00 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:25:31 +1100 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:25:31 +1100 From: Matthew Palmer To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org Message-ID: <20041111222531.GD23560@hezmatt.org> Mail-Followup-To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org References: <20041107234609.7bf0abfe@delta.hk.office.outblaze.com> <1099995711.2900.84.camel@stargate> <20041110204049.GD5978@suffields.me.uk> <20041111093245.GY721@vagabond> <20041111100931.GB11392@hezmatt.org> <6E1DC26B-340C-11D9-9D7F-000393CFE6B8@spy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6E1DC26B-340C-11D9-9D7F-000393CFE6B8@spy.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Re: darcs vs tla X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1438594873==" 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: 3203 Lines: 95 --===============1438594873== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7" Content-Disposition: inline --Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:06:37AM -0800, Dustin Sallings wrote: >=20 > On Nov 11, 2004, at 2:09, Matthew Palmer wrote: >=20 > >Assuming equal competency in each language, it seems reasonable. =20 > >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=20 > >amount > >of study effort and experience. >=20 > I'm not sure about this. python doesn't seem to have more reserved=20 > words than C. Then you have the special characters: =3D + * / [] {} ()= =20 > : ^ % # " """ ' (many of which are the same as many other languages). But do those tokens do significantly more than what they do in C? Then you start piling the whole standard library on top, which is where a lot of the productivity gains come from (hey, I don't have to hand-code a lot of , I'm so much quicker), and suddenly there's a lot more to learn to say you're a Python guru over what you need to learn to become a C guru. > >Andrew's comment wasn't about productivity, it was about readability=20 > >and > >maintainability. Having seen code in a lot of languages, I agree with= =20 > >him > >that programmers can make an equal mess in any language. Touting a=20 > >language > >because it supposedly easier to write neat code will get nowt but a=20 > >hollow > >laugh from me. >=20 > You're looking at it the wrong way. I don't think anybody's=20 > suggesting there's a language that people can't make ugly code in, but=20 > it's been my experience that well-written code in a high level language= =20 > is far easier to read than well-written code in a lower level language. Your standards for "well-written" just aren't high enough for the lower-level language. > Or, more specifically. It's easier to understand what five lines of=20 > well written text means than twenty lines of well written text. That's why it's easier to read Perl than C? Because you can stuff more into a line? I find Perl an absolute pest to read because there's 10 ways of stating anything, despite any size gains made from doing so. - Matt --Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBk+bbBEnrTWk1E4cRAuAaAJ9R+OPl9FIwRj7HkjRjrjn5WruvnwCgia39 f7Ke+uMPDVXNiVYGq4kN+tQ= =tH4M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7-- --===============1438594873== 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/ --===============1438594873==--