🚀 go-pugleaf

[ I originally posted an article on this subject about a month ago, but
  it didn't get out of the local area. ]

Periodically language wars spring up in comp.lang.misc when someone enthuses
over some feature of language "A", and how this makes it superior to language
"B". Almost always a supporter of "B" pops up and show how it also can take
advantage of this feature if you try hard enough.

This is trivially true, but meaningless. Any language can be used to implement
an interpreter for any other language, so it can be said that all languages
"have" all features. But what you have to do to the language to do this is
often more trouble than its worth.

The most recent war, over first class functions in C, is a classic example.
No, C functions aren't first class functions in the sense that object oriented
language adherents use the term. So what? The same is true of every other
procedural algol-derived language, including Modula, Euclid, and even ADA
(the language that is to programming as Emacs is to editing). It is not a
sin of C.

In fact, I don't see how a language that isn't interpreted nor object oriented
could be said to have first class functions.

Back to the point: there is nothing wrong with a language not having every
feature of every language under the sun. That way lies ADA and madness.
Don't worry if your favorite language seems to be missing some feature. The
folks who know what they're talking about know better. And the rest of the
readers don't care.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"