Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!marick
From: marick@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: FORTH, PASCAL, and C--- which one w
Message-ID: <2600032@ccvaxa>
Date: Wed, 1-Jan-86 03:11:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600032
Posted: Wed Jan  1 03:11:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Jan-86 00:48:20 EST
References: <1191@princeton.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:princeton.UUCP:1191:ccvaxa:2600032:000:938
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!marick    Jan  1 02:11:00 1986


I hate to wander far afield, but David desJardins responded to the claim that
an interpreted language shortens project development time by saying "This is
not really true on large projects (large enough to be broken into separate
modules)".  I disagree.  I've worked on large (using his definition) projects
that used the edit-compile-test-integrate technique.  My current project is
a large Lisp system; it's broken into modules and we write our code in the
usual Lisp interactive way.

As far as I can see, the interactive style is much more productive for
programming and some parts of design.  Of course, you still must *do*
design, and you still must test -- programming is not all there is.

Since most languages can be interpreted (some more easily than others),
my point isn't all that germane to this argument.


Brian Marick, Wombat Consort
Gould Computer Systems -- Urbana
...ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!marick
ARPA:  Marick@GSWD-VMS