UT Lisp Users Group?

Jonathan Ellis jonathan at carnageblender.com
Wed Jul 13 15:40:51 MDT 2005


On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:26:29 -0600, "Gabriel Gunderson" <gabe at gundy.org>
said:
> On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 15:02 -0600, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> > So no, not all languages are equal.
> 
> This smells like the language snobbery that we had at the plug meeting a
> while back.  It's all about ego (some egos being *quite* large).  If you
> can't convince your nerdy friends that you're smart then what do you
> have?

It's been well-demonstrated that some languages enable greater
productivity than others.  For example, "An empirical comparison of C,
C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl"
(http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprt_computer2000.pdf).
 See in particular the "total time for programming [hours]" graph on
page 6.

Dismissing the almost self-evident assertion that all languages are not
equal as "snobbery" baffles me.  Sure, you can bring out the irrelevant
"as long as they are both turing complete, who cares" but here in the
real world, some languages are clearly better than others.

Sendmail configuration is turing complete, after all. :) 
(http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/sendmail-as-turing-machine.txt)

-Jonathan



More information about the PLUG mailing list