Re: The Great Computer Language Shootout
C. K. Lester wrote:
>Jiri, where ya bean? How ya bean?
To all sorts of greener pastures: went back to Delphi for any really serious
work, and explored functional languages: Haskell, Caml and Clean (a nice new
version came out last week!). I also spent a bit of time with Icon (mainly
Unicon), Python (very nice, not at all as slow as some people would like us
to believe, especially if you use the fast array module, but, granted, a bit
on the bulky side) and Lua, which is, I think, the nicest free little
scripting language around, by far! I have also been playing with Linux in
preparation for the moment Bill pulls the plug on Win98SE, the last OS I
bought from those Redmond crooks, but , unfortunately, only the commercial
Lindows support all the weird hardware combinations I always seem to finish
with...
Ray Smith wrote:
>There was some discussion on the list a while ago about this.
>
>It's interesting in the FAQ is this:
>
>"The language should have most of the following desireable features:
>
> 1. Ability to read/write 4K buffers, bypassing standard I/O.
> 2. Process control (i.e. fork()/wait()).
> 3. Exceptions.
> 4. Regular Expressions (preferably Perl compatible).
> 5. Linux Kernel Threads.
> 6. Internet Sockets.
> 7. Objects.
> 8. Ability to print out its own version number.
> 9. A module system, and separate compilation of modules (if
>compiled).
>
>I may make some exceptions to the above, but only if I feel like it."
>
>The "author" is limiting the languages used to include "what he thinks"
>is the minimum requirements of a language.
>
>Euphoria for instance doesn't come close to meeting these requirements.
Ray, that's true, but looking at the Win version, its author seems to be
much more accommodating. And anyhow, I thought any sort of more 'objective'
comparison would be more interesting than the frequently embarrassing blurb.
jiri
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
