On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, T.J. Duchene <t.j.duchene@???> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:25:23 +0000
> KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:
>
> All computer languages are constrained to the physical nature of the
> processor, so the benefits of one over another are usually really
> nothing more than syntactic sugar.

So what you're saying is that all languages are syntactic sugar over
assembly? :)

> As a counter-argument, I would offer that you can perform any task in C,
> (with the extremely occasional asm block) that the processor is
> physically capable of, but the reverse cannot be said of other
> languages.

Fornicate yeah!

> These languages might be "easier to use" by those allergic to to lower
> level ones, but the overhead and inefficiency wastes battery power.
> Ultimately, the time the programmers might save are spent by the
> potential thousand users who have wait 5 minutes for the app to run
> rather than 2 1/2.

More and more i see "it'll be more work / take longer to implement /
be more complex" as developer excuses to use more "user-friendly"
languages like java (and less and less developers learning C in
college so they're biased). It should be easy for the end-user,
definitely; and if it can be easy for the developer as well, cool.
Making something less efficient/fast/scalable/____ because it's
hard...?

My uncalled-for €0.02
Cheers,
Nuno