[Tfug] Language choices

[t takahashi]

On 10/29/06, Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > at the low level, i'm not convinced that modern gc
> > languages are quite as bad as you imply.  even if
> > they are, there are subsets of at least one of those
> > languages (scheme) that avoid gc.  you might want to
> > check them out.
>
> Would you write a web page cgi in scheme?  :>
> Would you expect others to embrace that approach?
> Etc.

huh?  i thought that you were concerned that gc languages would fall
afoul of your embedded system's memory limitations.  i told you that
you might not want to dismiss some normally gc languages.  so what is
it with your rhetorical questions about something completely
different?

to answer your questions, 1) sure, why not? and 2) no, i expect people
to do whatever they want to do.  if people want to write them in
microsoft PYTH-COBOL++, hey, good for them.

to answer what is probably your reason for throwing those rhetorical
questions at me, no, scheme isn't my SHITLANG.  i opined that you
might want to consider it again since the vast majority of your stated
desires point more to scheme than any other language that somes to
mind at the moment (although forth had me going).  the major desires
against scheme are gc, functional family, and the apparent desire to
have no symbols at all in the syntax including parentheses.  i really
don't care what language you use.  really.  i REALLY just wanted to
help.  believe it or not.

i'm out of this discussion.  i sense that soon there will be heat and
little light in it.  i thought i might have been of help to you.  i
wasn't.  too bad.  good luck.  i hope you find exactly the language
you need.  no worries mate.

> I find most languages are *not* well thought out.
> Rather, they tend to be collections of ideas that
> "seemed good" to someone at some time (e.g., read

true.

most != all.  do you agree?

(oh, great, now the perl crowd will put on their larry costumes and bark at us).

> And, they are languages designed for general purpose
> (or specific purposes).

truer words have never been spoken.  they are indeed designed for, um,
general purpose or specific purposes.

:-)

> OTOH, I can decide which features are important to
> the types of applications that I need to address
> and cull those that are superfluous.

indeed.

have fun.

> *I* like recursion.  I don't think the folks who
> will be *writing* these applets would, though!

seems to me i addressed that point.

> Look at all of the folks out there who "build
> web pages".  Using Flash, or perl scripts, or...
> how many of those would embrace scheme?  Why
> haven't they?  :-(

if it comes down to that, then look at autocad or emacs.

or not.

-- 
Webmaster: do you believe that people will (a) switch browsers to view
your "best viewed with" page or (b) go to your competitor?