From: Brock Weaver <brockweaver@...>
Date: 2005-09-24T05:09:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Language recommendations from ruby persons....

------=_Part_10643_23953083.1127506154844
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

That's it. I'm off this list. First the DRM'd PDF discussion, now somebody
brings up COBOL. If I'm going down, I'm going down screamin...

Visual Basic rocks! SQL is for toads! Long live binary files! All your base
are belong to us! Bush is the mastermind behind hurricane Katrina's coverup=
!
There *was* a guy on the grassy knoll! Windows Vista will squash linux!

Okay, got that off my chest. Sorry, it's Friday. Just trying to bring a
smile, don't flame me too bad!

On 9/18/05, Dave Burt <dave@burt.id.au> wrote:
>
> James Britt wrote:
> > Lisp, Haskell, and Ocaml are floating in the back of my own mind as
> > candidates for next language to learn. Lisp has the upper hand so far,
> > because, well, it's *Lisp*. And there are lots of good, free resources
> > for it.
>
> I'm starting on Haskell, as time permits. Haskell has syntax (Lisp
> doesn't)
> and classes and type declarations. Functional programming is a different
> paradigm, powerful, more directly mathematical. And you can bring some of
> it
> back to Ruby.
>
> Of course, there's also COBOL, which may be the most popular language in
> the
> world by lines of code in production, but I think many would agree with m=
y
> claim that it is more painful than it is practical, and it is certainly
> practical - there are COBOL jobs.
>
> I just posted a paragraph on COBOL to comp.lang.ruby :)
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>


--
Brock Weaver
brockweaver@gmail.com

/* you are not expected to understand this */

------=_Part_10643_23953083.1127506154844--