home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
- From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
- Subject: Re: who should specify languages?
- Message-ID: <id.L8RV.IQC@ferranti.com>
- Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
- References: <1992Dec2.230925.8405@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Dec10.065945.7682@BofA.com> <1992Dec10.192524.25311@newshost.lanl.gov>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:36:03 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <1992Dec10.192524.25311@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
- > |> Do you hold to this principle? Did you ever? How well did it work?
-
- > It works *really* well in programming environments in which several
- > languages are available and are all compatible at the procedure call
- > level.
-
- It also works really well in UNIX, where programs are expected to work
- together. I write tools in whatever language is best suited for the task.
- Sometimes I write them several times as the requirements change: starting
- as a shell script, then moving to awk/perl/tcl/..., and then to C. I have
- one tool that's a combination of shell and C that started as Fortran and
- PL/M and migrated bit by bit as time went on...
-
- I wish there were more languages I could easily use: right now I' pretty
- much limited to whatever will run on Xenix-286. Working on 386en and
- Sparcs I'd be using scheme by now.
- --
- %Peter da Silva/77487-5012 USA/+1 713 274 5180/Have you hugged your wolf today?
- /L{lineto}def/C{curveto}def/F{0 562 moveto 180 576 324 648 396 736 C 432 736 L
- 482 670 518 634 612 612 C}def/G{setgray}def .75 G F 612 792 L 0 792 L fill 1 G
- 324 720 24 0 360 arc fill 0 G 3 setlinewidth F stroke showpage % "Peerless"
-