home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!NETCOM.COM!ADAMSR
- X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
- Message-ID: <9208190007.AA07155@netcom.netcom.com>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:07:15 PDT
- Sender: "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
- <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
- From: Rick Adams <adamsr@NETCOM.COM>
- Subject: Re: Computer Languages
- X-To: PSYCGRAD%UOTTAWA.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU
- In-Reply-To: <m0mKbzA-000A8gC@ais.org>; from "C G Kolar" at Aug 18, 92 3:54 pm
- Lines: 23
-
- Chris,
-
- Your comments on c++ vs Pascal are absolutely accurate (you REALLY
- think in c++ structures? I'd LOVE to study YOUR clinical profile <grin>).
-
- For serious program development c++ IS an excellent selection
- (depending on the nature of the program of course, for AI better choices
- exist) - but the thrust of the original message was that the language was
- being taken as a program *requirement* not for the purpose of actually
- mastering an additional language. Unless I badly mis-read the intent of that
- message, it was apparent that the language would *not* play a vital part in
- future work. Given this, Pascal is clearly the logical option (I assume that
- BASIC was the *first* langauge studied, and that languages such as LISP or
- ADA - both of which could have greater potential value than Pascal in terms
- of future applications - were not options).
-
- Assembler, anyone? ];-)>
-
- --
- rick.adams on GEnie /|\ You are right from your side,
- adamsr@netcom.com / | \ And I am right from mine.
- adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ / We're both just one too many mornings,
- adamsr@norwich.bitnet \|/ And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)
-