home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.software-eng
- Path: cnn.nas.nasa.gov!eos!jim-ra
- From: jim-ra@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Jim Stevenson's reader)
- Subject: Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer
- Message-ID: <1996Mar19.224447.19525@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
- Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
- References: <1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <RMARTIN.96Mar13110714@rcm.oma.com> <4i862r$1evq@saba.info.ucla.edu> <RMARTIN.96Mar15094448@rcm.oma.com> <bksDoE2Fu.GBp@netcom.com> <653t-Df-3RB@herold.franken.de>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 22:44:47 GMT
-
- jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz) writes:
-
- >bks@netcom.com wrote 17.03.96 on Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer:
-
- >> Would someone be kind enough to remind me of one single
- >> important contribution to the Web or the Internet that
- >> is written in eiffel?
-
- >Oh no... with that argument, you can easily dismiss *any* new language.
-
- >Or, to state it bluntly: We'd still program in machine code if the first
- >assembler had been dismissed because no Important Contribution had been
- >done with it yet.
- COME ON, look EIFFEL has been around how many years??? Look
- EIFFEL is cumbersome. I'm willing to bet the time assembly saved over
- Machine Language allowed apps. to be written very quickly with a fast
- turnaround and assembly's value was quickly realized! That HAS NOT
- HAPPENED WITH eiffel !!!!!! EIFFEL has some merit for mission critical
- programming that needs EXTENSIVE error checking; BUT for apps that one
- doesn't worry about near 100% code correctness ( ie ANY app that has a
- deadline ) EIFFELL's not the language for the job.
-
-
- >Im speaking for myself here.
- ME TOO !!!!!!!!
-