Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Objective-C review
Message-ID: <55517@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jun 90 16:34:10 GMT
References: <1638@dinl.mmc.UUCP> <1690@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> <5239@stpstn.UUCP> <55443@microsoft.UUCP> <5281@stpstn.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19

In article <5281@stpstn.UUCP> andyk@stpstn.UUCP (Andy Klapper) writes:
>One thing that I would like to know is why you feel that simple languages
>friendly to the neophyte programmer cannot be used in the large commercial
>projects ?  I always thought simple & elegant was better than complex and
>and confused.  When my code gets big and complex I don't want to be fighting
>with the structures and syntax that a language forces on me.  On the other
>hand I don't want to have to fight with a language to let me do something
>that I need to do.  (I admit it, I want everything !)

Well, perhaps you can suggest a simple language friendly to the neophtye
programmer that can be used for large commercial projects?  In my experience,
they don't work.  You need rigor built into the language for large projects,
for small single-writer projects that rigor is just a pain.  Ideally, one
wants a language that is simple as possible while still covering the vast
majority of the tasks at hand, but no simpler.  It is a royal pain trying to
"fake it" in a language that doesn't have quite the features one needs --
which is reality.  Quick, single programmer projects can be legitimately
written in "write-only" scripting languages.  Clearly that is unacceptable
in large projects.