> 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