>>>>> "Smiljan" =3D=3D Smiljan Grmek <Smi@4mate.hr> writes:
Smiljan> Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who has to read and write production code in Perl or Tcl or C++
>> within the same period as, say, Scheme, can testify to that.
Smiljan> [ie Scheme is better]
>>
Smiljan> *Anyone* is a fairly large concept - please go find an average
Smiljan> programmer without experience in Tcl and Scheme, present him/her w=
ith
Smiljan> appropriate manuals and have h/h read/write code ...
"Anyone" has nothing to do with averages. "Anyone" is anyone. Find
one person that has to read and write *production code* in one of
Perl, Tcl, C++ *and* Scheme who doesn't agree.
As for the "average programmer without experience," (which is not what
my post referred to, but so what) refer to Paul Hudak's and Mark
Jones's paper
"Haskell vs. Ada vs. C++ vs. Awk vs. ..."
(I believe published in the Journal of Functional Programming, but
also available from
/nebula.systemsz.cs.yale.edu:/pub/yale-fp/papers/NSWC
)
which reports a DoD study involving (among others) Lisp, C++, and
Haskell. The object was to implement a "Geometric Region Server".
The Haskell folks also repeated the experiment with a Haskell novice
that finished *even faster* than the expert Haskell programmer.
The abstractions used in the Haskell code are pretty much the ones a
Lisp programmer would use. (The Lisp guys also finished very
quickly.) These abstractions also happen to be not as readily
available to, say, Tcl or C++ programmers.
--
Cheers =3D8-} Mike
Friede, V=F6lkerverst=E4ndigung und =FCberhaupt blabla
|