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

["Kelly Hall" <hall@priest.com>]

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
QECdnXzeWrOgUm2jXTWc-w@speakeasy.net">news:QECdnXzeWrOgUm2jXTWc-w@speakeasy.net...
> Sure, but you have the power to burn.  If something's going to be used
> in a situation where it's lightly loaded or doesn't need to perform
> well, by all means optimize for development time.  On the other hand,
> if you're going to be running heavily loaded at the limits of current
> hardware, you're going to need to spend some development time looking
> at performance.

Ahh, so the runtime nature of the task at hand has implications on one's
choice of programming language?  That's a much different attitude than
Kevin's, who seemed to imply high-level languages are bad bad bad and we
should all be writing our RDBMS code in assembly because it's "more
efficient".

My attitude is, and has been for decades, have a big toolbox and use the
right tool for the job.  :)

Kelly