On Mon, 9 May 2005 07:40:10 +0100 Joseph Kiniry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I guess I should have been a little more specific to only > > include > > languages that have enough libraries to be useful, and obviously > > purely functional languages aren't comparable, you ignoring the > > requirements I listed doesn't help things either. I mean seriously, > > on what planet exactly does python or java have performance close > > to C#? > > Whoops, there you go not following my advice. No, there you go living in a little fantasy world where you can say things and they are magically true. Python and java are both significantly slower than C#, especially python, its not even close. And the functional languages aren't comparable because they are functional languages. Like I said, I should have been more specific, but haskell isn't just very different in how the language works, but also how a programmer thinks and uses it. I am not saying functional languages are better or worse than imperative languages, just that I should have included "imperative" on the list of requirements, my bad. I don't know why you so desperately want to hate C#, but perhaps you should try it sometime before claiming its so worthless. > > Guess what, EVERYTHING is patented. Start digging through US > > patents and you'll find out that your options are to not use > > computers in any fashion, or infringe on bogus patents. > > I encourage you to search the US patent database for patents issued > to Bell Labs for C++-related technologies. See http://www.uspto.gov/ > patft/. Here is an advanced search query to get you started: "APD/ > 1/1/1980->12/25/1985 and Stroustrup". It is just an example, of > course. If you have to ignore what I say just so you can argue with me, then lets take it off list. You can't honestly think a patent covering some aspect of C++ only matters if its Bell that holds it? Adam
