Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!elg From: elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Modern languages (Slight return) Message-ID: <4118@killer.UUCP> Date: 18 May 88 06:36:27 GMT References: <3292@enea.se> Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 28 in article <3292@enea.se>, sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) says: > Pam Arnold (pmjc@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP) writes: >>This one may beg the question, but if any shop is REALLY SERIOUS about >>this sort of problem, why not switch to a more modern language, especially >>one that is more tailored to the requirements of software engineering? For >>example Modula-2 and Ada (no flames, just add your own to the list). Because some of us have performance guidelines to meet (like, it has to be finished calculating in 1/30th of a second, i.e. a video frame), and thus can't use something like Module-2 or Ada. Heck, some of us have to use ASSEMBLER! (YOU try processing an entire hi-res video frame... unless you want to go with expensive custom hardware...). Besides, every Ada compiler I've ever seen has been a pig that generated enormous code. Modula-2 would be a good choice, but on the machine I'm using, the "C" compiler generates decent code (ah, that good ole' register optimization parade!), and the only Modula-2 for that particular machine is buggy and doesn't allow access to the operating system (no marks against Modula-2, there... I've used a very good Modula-2 on a VAX... but we must admit that the availability of good Modula-2 compilers is limited). Choice of implementation language should have little effect upon software engineering of a product. The only exception is that there are paridigms reasonable in Lisp that you would never want to try in Fortran.... -- Eric Lee Green {cuae2,ihnp4}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 "Is a dream a lie that don't come true, or is it something worse?"