Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:21:15 -0600 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:21:14 +0000 From: lipska the kat Organization: Trollbusters 3 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: What's the best non-JVM native language to look at? References: <428f8206-d4f7-4fe6-b93c-8f881b498be6@googlegroups.com> <99qdnVXamdWBRErPnZ2dnUVZ8mOdnZ2d@bt.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 54 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser X-Trace: sv3-KZv85Lg6nYNXFJJFsxbl2Q+dmKT7CnZYPotvbM6gvwm1Ttkb+gkzhWl3HB/nYaZW0zpM3IsN18t+j1n!fmow784YFXsKoheRtTp0YPH2QVA/N7hSWLTWPVLqNY4PgfWLdaeHhjIwVarwRt5ZsG+KKoSj93zL X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 3951 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:27417 On 28/01/14 14:13, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > On 01/17/2014 10:02 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:08:26 +0000, lipska the kat wrote: >> >>> According to lots of references on the intertubes the first C++ compiler >>> was written in something called 'C with classes' which was written in >>> ... C >>> >> Way back when C++ was the new kid on the block I remember reading that >> the first C++ compilker was actually a standard C compiler with the >> Cfront >> preprocessor substituted for the usual cpre preprocessor. >> >> ==== >> >> Personally I still can't be arsed to spend the time needed to learn C++. >> I looked at it some time ago and found it offensive for both its >> complexity and the obscene amount of code generated. In any case, far too >> much of the so-called "C++" I've looked at has been nothing more than >> ANSI C with comments delimited by "//": and not class or object in sight. >> > I agree about the complexity. I'll wager most people do, even C++ > supporters...in fact some C++ aficionados glory in the complexity of the > language. This is exactly why most C++ programmers use a small subset of > the "++" stuff...and not even that always correctly. > > I don't know what you mean by generated code. Templates, presumably. Or > is it executable size? Neither is a problem. I'm more worried about > _Java_ code bloat. This is not a major C++-specific problem. > >> If a programming task is essentially file manipulation I'll use awk. If >> the job is moderately complex and can be written in ANSI C I'll use that. >> If an OO approach is called for I'll use Java and, if some fiddling is >> required that Java can't do, I'll use a combination of C and Java with >> sockets for inter-language data transfer. >> >> > I probably wouldn't resort to C as quickly as you do, but my general > philosophy - given free rein - is not way different. I certainly don't > see Java as the go-to language for everything...and some people do. > > I say "given free rein" because most of the time it's not possible to > use the best language on a real job, for various reasons. > > If I had to nominate *one* programming language that I think is #1 > all-time, awk (and some variants) would be my choice. awk -> erk! -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer, treacherous feline and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun GNU/Linux user #560883 - http://www.linuxcounter.net