On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, T.J. Duchene <t.j.duch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:25:23 +0000 > KatolaZ <kato...@freaknet.org> wrote: > > All computer languages are constrained to the physical nature of the > processor, so the benefits of one over another are usually really > nothing more than syntactic sugar.
So what you're saying is that all languages are syntactic sugar over assembly? :) > As a counter-argument, I would offer that you can perform any task in C, > (with the extremely occasional asm block) that the processor is > physically capable of, but the reverse cannot be said of other > languages. Fornicate yeah! > These languages might be "easier to use" by those allergic to to lower > level ones, but the overhead and inefficiency wastes battery power. > Ultimately, the time the programmers might save are spent by the > potential thousand users who have wait 5 minutes for the app to run > rather than 2 1/2. More and more i see "it'll be more work / take longer to implement / be more complex" as developer excuses to use more "user-friendly" languages like java (and less and less developers learning C in college so they're biased). It should be easy for the end-user, definitely; and if it can be easy for the developer as well, cool. Making something less efficient/fast/scalable/____ because it's hard...? My uncalled-for €0.02 Cheers, Nuno _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
