🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov6.230030.16637@leland.Stanford.EDU> dhinds@leland.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) writes:

   In article <1de9ckINNfj7@life.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu writes:
   >I do write and use long-running programs (weeks, months) that use
   >multiple workstations extensively in my work.
   >
   >For such programs, I find that correctness and maintainability are of
   >paramount importance.  Efficiency, on the other hand, is of much
   >less importance.

   Sorry, I think correctness/maintainability and efficiency are usually
   orthogonal and one can usually have both.

Of course you can have both. But you seem to have lost track of the
origins of this argument: Rubin claims that "programming languages for
scientists and mathematicians" should have all sorts of esotheric
features to support manual optimizing and they should give you very
low-level access to the machine. But writing correct, maintainable
code in such a language is an arduous and time consuming task, and
many people apparently don't even know how to.

Since scientists and mathematicians generally only have little time to
spend on programming they (including myself) are probably better off
choosing a programming language that supports safety and reuse (i.e.,
a language with GC, runtime checks, polymorphism) and that is simple
and regular enough so that it can be mastered fully in a short amount
of time.

					Thomas.