Re: Why Use anything BUT C?
From: Alan Connor (zzzzzz_at_xxx.yyy)
Date: 10/07/03
- Next message: Malcolm: "Re: Counter Intuitive Results: Optimising an FFT routine for Speed"
- Previous message: Dave Vandervies: "Re: [OT] Compile C Code With A CPP Compiler?"
- In reply to: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Next in thread: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Peter Nilsson: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:20:13 GMT
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:37:05 GMT, Mike Wahler <mkwahler@mkwahler.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> You lost me, Mike, and a ways back, I think.
>
> Doesn't really matter, since we're not talking about C anymore
> anyway. :-) I'll try again: I'm saying that with a compiled language
> such as C, once the program has been translated into executable
> form, the source text is unnecessary for it to be executed.
> Contrast an "interpreted" language, where the source is parsed
> every time it's run. I suspect the "runtime" of the interpreter
> is what you're referring to with "prompt", where I jumped to
> the conclusion that you meant "operating system's command prompt".
> Sorry for any confusion.
>
> -Mike
>
>
Okay, let me ask you this:
Would it be practical to run an entire OS (or the vast bulk of it) with
an interpreted language?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
news:EDEgb.1500$av5.426@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> On 7 Oct 2003 11:12:39 -0700, John Bode <john_bode@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Well this will work out well then, because I am not into the GUI at all.
"GUI" is not the only thing that C is not best suited for, it's
only of of them. E.g. text parsing *can* be done with C, but
many feel that something like Perl is more suited to it. Darn
near "anything" can be done with C (which imo is a big reason
for its popularity), but many tasks are more quickly and "easily"
done with some other language(s). YMMV.
(I prefer sed and other utilities and the shell for text editing,
and would learn AWK before Perl, any day.)
We're just advising you to not limit yourself to one or two
tools. Get out to the hardware store and fill up that toolbox. :-)
-Mike
One step at a time, Mike, although there is no disputing the wholesomeness
of that advice.
But I may decide to use only C and Sh. :-)
-- Later, Alan C You can find my email address at the website: contact.html take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
- Next message: Malcolm: "Re: Counter Intuitive Results: Optimising an FFT routine for Speed"
- Previous message: Dave Vandervies: "Re: [OT] Compile C Code With A CPP Compiler?"
- In reply to: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Next in thread: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Peter Nilsson: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
