llothar schrieb:
> Universities are by definition good for research
> (at least they
> should) but are they able to implement good development tools? I don't
> believe it.
> I haven't seen it.
SmartEiffel development does not seem to be driven by a large
commercial user base, ok. OTOH, the Monash University Eiffel
compiler is well known here ;-). Another commercially successful
university toolset is the GNU NYU Ada Translator, also known as
GNAT. So it might depend on who is working at the resp. university.
> Nobody is
> satisfied
> in this area, because for many use cases the traditional tools do not
> really help here (using multithreading in games is much harder then
> using
> it to speed up a Ruby on Rails webserver).
The _really_ traditional tools seem to be a lot more helpful
than the newer ones, such as C, C++, Scheme, and the like;
I mean, Simula, Algol 68, HPF, ... all know about parallel
hardware and many CPUs.
> The question is if there
> is a
> future. This hits the question what is a dead language? Everyone has
> it's own
> definition. Mine is that only a language that has many new
> developments,
> new projects and is able to keep up with new technologies (Eiffel for
> Cell CPU's).
> I'm not looking at it in the way of an individuell living being but
> with a view
> on the species itself. And there i don't see a future. It's like
> mankind in the
> movie "Children of men" there everything is also still alive but
> without future.
Well, then everyone missing the one big party is probably with
the dead, be they rich or not. How is the editor business these days?
|
