🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4930@watdragon.waterloo.edu> djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) writes:
>In article <10407@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>>The idea of a universal language has appeal:  One language
>>for every problem.  So does the idea of a universal vaccine:
>>One cure for every illness.  Personally, I believe the chances
>>for either are about the same.

>This is a poor analogy.  The function of a programming language is
>totally different from a vaccine, and so is the development process.
>A vaccine has strict biological constraints on its size and form, but a
>programming language has few constraints.  Save this cute line for
>cocktail parties when people are too drunk to analyze it.

First of all, your tone is not becoming of the normally high level of
professionalism that is displayed in this newsgroup.  Criticism is part
of the intellectual process, insults are not.  Confine such comments to
newsgroups where such behavior is appropriate (i.e. none).

Now, back to Chris' analogy, one that I have used is "Ya don't use a
screwdriver to pound nails".  Some languages are better for symbolic
processing, others are better for operating systems.  The type of
problems you face dictate the tools you use to solve them.  

The idea of one perfect language implies that everyone's needs are the
same.  Sorry Charlie, t'aint so.

mark vandewettering