Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!hrc!gtephx!campbellb
From: campbellb@...!asuvax!gtephx (Brian Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Choosing a language (ML vs HLL)
Summary: Great reply!
Message-ID: <1991Apr29.205334.314@...!asuvax!gtephx>
Date: 29 Apr 91 20:53:34 GMT
References: <51986@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: gte
Lines: 21

In article <51986@apple.Apple.COM>, stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) writes:
    .... lots deleted ....
> So, in summary, I believe that a program will be written with the best design,
> quickest implementation, fewest bugs, and best performance, if you use the
> following steps:
    .... lots deleted ....
> Andy Stadler
> Author, HyperCard IIGS
> Apple Computer, Inc.

Andy's comments are among the best I have seen on this debate.
I have over 10 year's experience in professional software design and
implementation, and to me, his statements seem natural and obvious.
I don't think I could seriously disagree with anything stated.

Also, an HLL is an enabler.  With its abstraction of execution flow,
and data structures, it enables designers to tackle more complex
designs, and produce products with greater depth.
So you can get large and robust applications like Hyper Card
and (put your favorite game here).  Otherwise we might still be
in the "stone age days" of PONG and SPACE INVADERS.