On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 05:36:49PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 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, ¡Èonly a
> > scripting language¡É because you can only use it for a subset of
> > programming problems.
> > 
> > For example you wouldn¡Çt write a parser, compiler, 3D engine, something
> > like zlib, openssl, or similar in Ruby (because of performance), you
> > can¡Çt write device drivers, you can¡Çt 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.

. . . and I wouldn't use C or Fortran for certain classes of complex
application programming, either.

I wouldn't use Java at all, if I could help it, but that's another
story.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent:  a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/