From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2006-07-05T12:28:54+09:00
Subject: Re: ed borasky and his second favourite programming language

Elliot Temple wrote:
>
> For small, well-defined problems that won't change, a specialised
> language is best, if there is an appropriate one.
>
> For large, well-defined specialised problems that won't change, a
> specialised language is best.
Yes ... as I noted in an earlier post, C did not manage to displace
either FORTRAN or Lisp. Both FORTRAN and Lisp are in a sense general
purpose, but they got "tuned" for specific application areas -- number
crunching for FORTRAN and AI for Lisp. And the only languages that have
risen up since C that have given it a serious challenge are the
scripting languages Perl, Python and Ruby, and to a lesser extent Java.
> For most projects, we don't know if the specs will change, if we even
> have detailed specs in the first place. In this case when it's
> important to be able to deal with unpredictable challenges, a more
> general language is important.
Agreed ... though I suspect something very much higher level than a
"typical" programming language is really what's required for this type
of project. UML, for example, or the new tools that are starting to come
along based on the "PI Calculus".
> R can get us to one place. Ruby can get us anywhere, a bit slower(?).
> If we're not positive where we're going, then Ruby is a good idea.
Hmmm ... was it the caterpillar or the Cheshire cat who told Alice,
"Well, if you don't know where you want to go, any road will take you
there?"

<ducking>

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com