On Aug 22, 2:31 pm, Happy Trails <nom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I hold the version of Basic to which I referred earlier in the highest
> regard in terms of a programmer productivity tool that could be used
> to create the most intricate work I have ever done, with a speed of
> execution of the compiled result equal to the best C programs of the
> day, without the potential bugged-ness of C.
>
> You seem to promote it for its simplicity.
>
> Is this an accurate and fair *****sment of your comments?
I prefer to separate out language definition and usage
from implementation and performance. It is true that a
good compiler is on the order of 100 times faster than a
typical interpreter. But the interface and semantics of a
language need not change as Moore's law causes the industry
to march forward. Stuff that used to run 100x too slow on
old computers even when compiled in Fortran, or hand coded
in assembly, can now run fast enough in interpreted Basic,
because the CPU may have 10,000x higher performance (even
more if you compare to an Altair or GE minicomputer).
So performance problems have greatly decreased, while ease
of learning even simple programming concepts and tools seems
to have become more of an issue among non-experts these days.
And the move to computer languages with a higher level of
abstraction seems to have led to IDE's that are bulkier,
more complex and more opaque.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
|
