On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:05:34PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:16:52 -0600
> "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@???> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I've also believe that
> > interpreted languages should never be used for anything other than a
> > teaching tool. If you must use something like that, at least use
> > something that supports JIT to native code.
>
> If I were the king of all open source, and a programmer asked to write
> a program in C, I would ask them to justify that. Will their
> performance bottleneck be the code itself rather than the typist's
> fingers? Will the time taken by their program materially affect the
> overall performance of the computer? Do they need special access to the
> metal that Python doesn't give them? Do they need to deal with a
> library not accessible via Python, or even Lua?
>

It is surely not of fundamental relevance for the discussion, but I
can't agree with this statement either :D

Back in the days I thought that I would have eventually found "the
perfect language", but then I realised that such a thing does not
exist. Unless you develop just *one specific type* of software, in
which case a perfect language *for that specific task* might
exist. Otherwise, programming languages are in all respects quite
similar to human languages: you will need to speak Spanish in Spain,
Chinese in China, Russian in Russia, and so on. Maybe you can survive
in most parts of the world with a little English (or a little Python,
out of the metaphor), but it is undeniable that your communication
potential increases more than linearly with the number of human
languages you can fluently speak (or with the number and variety of
programming language you master, out of metaphor)...

My2Cents

KatolaZ


--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]