enough said (was: Philosophical musings...)
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
Thank you! I was getting sick of this thread :)
I'm perfectly happy with assembler, forth, lisp, and an algebraic
expression parser for forth & lisp. Any language that doesn't restrict me
will do; the simpler, the better.
A question to ponder: Does type checking help programmers catch bugs? Or
does it cause their debugging ability to atrophy, so they have a hard time
catching a bug that slips past the compiler?
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 email@example.com wrote:
> This conversation is a bit silly. There are both low-level and
> high-level problems in operating systems. There are times when a
> single body of code must address both. One wants neither a low-level
> nor a high-level language, but rather a language that meets the
> requirements. Relative to *current* languages this means a language
> that has low-level primitives but is highly extensible. LISP is one
> candidate. OCAML is a much better one (type safety), and lately has
> been running very efficiently.
> Straightjackets are necessary for people who don't think well.
> Operating systems are complex and require careful thought. People who
> require straightjackets therefore do not build operating systems well,
> regardless of the presence or absence of straightjackets.
> Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph. D.
> IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
> Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Phone: +1 914 784 7085 (Tieline: 863)
> Fax: +1 914 784 7595
Endicott, NY (home of IBM)
P.S. - thanks alot for dumping trichloromethane in our aquifer ;)