Allan Odgaard wrote:
> On 2/9/2006, at 3:07, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
>> I think that's one of the reasons that long-time C, Java, and Fortran
>> programmers (among others) tend to view languages like Perl and Ruby as
>> "only a scripting language": the code doesn't look complex enough [...]
> 
> While it may have something to do with it, it is, compared to C, Ň–nly a
> scripting languagebecause you can only use it for a subset of
> programming problems.
> 
> For example you wouldn√’ write a parser, compiler, 3D engine, something
> like zlib, openssl, or similar in Ruby (because of performance), you
> can√’ write device drivers, you can√’ interface to a lot of things (w/o
> writing bindings in, you guessed it, C) etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
You can't or shouldn't really do those things in Java or Fortran either.
C was a *systems* programming language first, and only evolved into an
application programming language later. It was designed for writing
operating systems and compilers and text processing tools. It was almost
15 years before C compilers were competitive with Fortran compilers for
number crunching.