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

[dochawk@scualum.com (Richard E. Hawkins)]

In article <bcja6o$nhs$4@hercules.btinternet.com>,
Kevin Lawton <kepla@btinternet.com> wrote:
>vector <root@localhost> wrote:

>Sounds like typical M$ plonker-speak to me.   :-)
>Quite how was this guy thinking ?

>| I was both sickened and awed by the very idea that MS, by way of this
>| guy's statement, had essentially told me I am too stupid to be
>| trusted to be a programmer.

>I, too, am a reluctant user of recent high-level languages - having worked
>at first on assembler and then C. Fast, efficient, compact programs just
>don't seem to be the aim of programmers anymore. 

There's a bit of pendulum swinging back and forth ehere, too.  I could
do my numerical work in C or something else rather than Fortran, but it
would take three times as long to write twice as much code, and then I'd
have to hand-optimized just to get to what I have now.  And the code
wouldn't be as readable (believe it or not, there *are* classes of
problem which fit naturally to modern Fortran . . .)


>How else could you explain Java ?
    
I've always assume it had to do with descrated altars, broken
pentagrams, and human sacrifice . . .


:)

hawk
                                                          13,1          60%