> Supposedly with lower level languages you buy better run time with a
> big expenditure of more programmer time; but by and large I don't see
> the payoff as being worth it.  YMMV, but for anything other than
> hard-core systems programming (including developing inner-loop
> libraries), C, C++, and even Java (although it's certainly easier than
> the first two) seem really masochistic.

I guess I find it, well WEIRD, that you would consider Java as a low-level
systems programming language.  To me it is a very high level language.  It
runs on top of a virtual machine and you have zero direct access to the
hardware.  It has feature-full runtime metadata system, dynamic code
swapping/generation/instrumentation, and garbage collection.  Plus it has a
whole host of IDEs offering GUI painters, code generation, documentation,
profiling, and refactoring tools.  In fact, it is plain terrible at systems
programming.  It's difficult to do things as simple as process control or
determine if a file is executable.

Perhaps my viewpoint is different because I programmed in C and C++ for
several years before using Java.



_______________________________________________
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
Help beta test TCLUG's potential new home: http://plone.mn-linux.org
Got pictures for TCLUG? Beta test http://plone.mn-linux.org/gallery
tclug-list at mn-linux.org
https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list