Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhb!hpsmtc1!hp-ses!cricket
From: cricket@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM (Jiminy Cricket)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Re: Response to <31904@cci632>
Message-ID: <3960006@hp-ses>
Date: 8 Dec 89 23:44:00 GMT
References: <31904@cci632>
Lines: 22


    > To my mind, more abstraction brings with it both an "easier and [more] 
    > straighforward" programming paradigm, but often at the cost of greater 
    > compiler or interpreter complexity 
    
    This is a good rule of thumb also, but it is not perfect either. 
   
Granted.  You could always write a Byzantine compiler for a simple programming
language, or (better) find a powerful, straightforward paradigm which happened
to map directly to your CPU's instruction set.
 
    > C, to many folks, is a nasty, grubby language.  
    
    Surely we can find something more interesting to talk about then "my
    language is better than your language". 

Just meant to underscore the idea the C is not, by many standards, an "easy
and straightforward" language.  Besides, I'm not the right person to talk 
about "my language is better than your language" here (unless you wanna defend 
something else).  I program mostly in C.

cricket