M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> > . . . and I wouldn't use C or Fortran for certain classes of complex
> > application programming, either.
> There are a lot of things I wouldn't use Fortran for, although when it
> was the only high-level language my colleagues were used to, I did. :)
> But despite its original intent as a systems programming language, I
> can't think of a single application I wouldn't write in C if that's what
> I was paid to do.
>
> There are tools and programming styles that can make C programming as
> easy as programming in a dynamic language like Ruby or Perl or Python.
> And the whining about the edit/compile/link/test cycle being less
> efficient than the edit/test cycle of a dynamic language I think is just
> that -- whining. If your complex application is properly modularized,
> that's just not a big deal.

No, not just whining.

There's so much to know about any programming language and tool chain,
that we are understandably ignorant of other languages and tools.
However in these Google days it's harder to understand why we would
continue to assume that the only tools available for C are
compilers/linkers... Searching on c interpreter should be enough to
find things like http://root.cern.ch/root/Cint.html

>
> C++, on the other hand, I consider a gross abomination. :)
>
> > I wouldn't use Java at all, if I could help it, but that's another
> > story.
> Well ... I liked Java at one time well enough to choose it over the
> protestations of management for a project ... as an excuse to learn the
> language. I find Ruby to be a happy blend of all that's good in Java
> (objects, classes, methods, garbage collection) and Perl (regular
> expressions, system administration primitives built in, arrays and
> hashes, simplified syntax), with a few other nice touches of its own
> (lambdas, continuations, open classes).