Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)

[wildstar <wildstar128@hotmail.com>]

"Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:bcr0jg$ep0$5@sparta.btinternet.com: 

> Nope.
> My point is that consumers (in the very widest sense) are paying for
> immensely powerfull machines which only just manage to cope with the
> application tasks put before them because of the proliferation of
> inefficient software technology.
> I am saying that it seems that many of the tasks which a typical 2 GHz
> PC is bought for could be adequately performed by a less powerfull
> machine were the software more efficient. Alternatively, more
> efficient software on current machines should show better speed and
> functionality then is currently seen. I've nothing against high-level
> languages - I've been using them for long enough. My complaint is
> aimed at the recent trend towards languages and techniques which are
> 'easier' and 'dumbed-down' leading to large inefficient programs. Java
> is a typical example of this trend. As a trade-off for being quick and
> easy (but not that quick or easy) to write and portable across
> platforms, java gives away efficiency to just about every other
> language I've used - except Basic, which was not created to be used 
> seriously.

Excuse me, one has to first write/compile a JAVA compiler. It still 
requires interpretation during execution. Did you forget about the byte-
code interpretation. That is like converting tokens in token BASIC.

I think C/C++ is very much sufficient in developing an RDBMS. Why ?
All those higher-level languages are written in C/C++ so the basic tool 
like the bubble-sort can be written in C/C++. Basically, I don't care. I 
do not mind seeing JAVA apps available for C-One.