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!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!dircon!rheged!simon
From: simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)
Subject: The last 10% (was Re: Please help with research)
Message-ID: <DDLnpy.oo@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Organization: none. Disorganization: total.
References: <405glu$cv6@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <40g8t9$2kq@ornews.intel.com> <40gf7m$8e6@ionews.io.org> <DDAy77.HJp@ss3.magec.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 08:03:33 GMT
Lines: 38
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.ada:34177 comp.lang.apl:7249 comp.lang.basic.misc:8345 comp.lang.c:152314 comp.lang.c++:145066 comp.lang.clos:3435 comp.lang.eiffel:10507 comp.lang.forth:23636 comp.lang.fortran:31424 comp.lang.lisp:18885 comp.lang.misc:22787 comp.lang.modula2:12417 comp.lang.prolog:13724 comp.lang.smalltalk:27463 comp.lang.objective-c:4402 comp.lang.functional:6249

In article <DDAy77.HJp@ss3.magec.com>,
Steve O'Shaughnessy <smosha@most.magec.com> wrote:
>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.

SNIP

>>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?

Sorry, I've got tempted back in again. The languages (such as my
favourite, LISP) which can do some difficult things 'extremely well'
can also do trivial things, quite well. The languages which can do
trivial things 'extremely well' can often do difficult things only
with extreme difficulty or not at all. Would you hire a programmer who
conuldn't do 10% of the job at all?


-- 
------- simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)
    .::;===r==\   
   /  /___||___\____         
  //==\-  ||-  |  /__\(      MS Windows IS an operating environment.
 //____\__||___|_//  \|:     C++ IS an object oriented programming language. 
   \__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/       Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.
