Hi Adam,
Apologies for the delay in response; I've been busy.
On 9 May 2005, at 11:52, Adam wrote:
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.
I have numbers to support my claim that they are close. Perhaps we
have a different definition of "close" in this world of gigahertz and
gigabytes.
E.g., the highly optimized computer language shootout competition
still has Python and Java running within 25% of C# on nearly all
problem sets. This is also confirmed in my (extensive) personal
experience with all mentioned languages sans C#. My experience with
C# is gained through folks I work with, rather than my direct
experience. You have contrary data?
And the functional languages aren't comparable because they are
functional languages.
Ah, I see. I never saw "functional language do not count"
prerequisite. My oversight I guess.
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 agree with you, unless you are one of those wacky procedural or OO
programmers that likes recursion over iteration. :)
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.
Got'cha, no problem.
I don't know why you so desperately want to hate C#, but perhaps you
should try it sometime before claiming its so worthless.
I do not hate it at all---I just cannot tolerate folks badmouthing
languages or platforms with which they do not have extensive
experience. I had presumed, given the tone of some of the responses
to my post, that this was one of those situations. I could be wrong.
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?
Please pick three primary features of C++ then and I'll perform a
patent search on them. That will not invalidate my claim, but will
certainly invalidate yours.
Joe
---
Joseph Kiniry
Department of Computer Science
University College Dublin
http://secure.ucd.ie/
