Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.apl,comp.lang.basic.misc,comp.lang.basic.visual,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.clos,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.forth,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.oberson,comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.objective-c,comp.lang.functional
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!ss3!usenet
From: smosha@most.magec.com (Steve O'Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: Please help with research
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: smosha
Message-ID: <DDAy77.HJp@ss3.magec.com>
Sender: usenet@ss3.magec.com
Organization: MESC
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.2
References: <405glu$cv6@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <407g6k$705@nova.sti.nasa.gov> <DD207n.8wy@ss3.magec.com> <40g8t9$2kq@ornews.intel.com> <40gf7m$8e6@ionews.io.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 13:16:18 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.ada:33896 comp.lang.apl:7157 comp.lang.basic.misc:8099 comp.lang.c:151282 comp.lang.c++:143780 comp.lang.clos:3356 comp.lang.eiffel:10357 comp.lang.forth:23520 comp.lang.fortran:31199 comp.lang.lisp:18713 comp.lang.misc:22664 comp.lang.modula2:12330 comp.lang.prolog:13624 comp.lang.smalltalk:27132 comp.lang.objective-c:4308 comp.lang.functional:6173

In article <40gf7m$8e6@ionews.io.org>, cbbrown@io.org says...

>An evaluation of languages based on a trivial requirement is
>only going to tell you how easy it is to do trivial things in
>the assorted languages.
>
>It doesn't provide much in the way of conclusions about anything
>more profound, like whether *real* tasks can be done practically
>in the language.

Which in my experience is what 90 percent of programming is.  Kind of like RISC 
processors.  Why sacrifice 90% of your code to do 10% profoundly.
>
>The resulting magazine article may be of high quality by say
>Byte standards, but that's not saying much.  In terms of real
>usefulness to people trying to pick languages, the process is
>pretty futile.  I know *I* wouldn't hire programmers on that
>basis.
>-- 

If I understand you correctly, you would rather have a programmer that does one 
profound task extremely well, 10 percent (my figure) of the time, than a 
programmer that can do 90 percent of the work extremely well?

Steve O

