Programming Language History [was: F/OS & the blind]

[Ben Scott]

On 12/8/05, Bill Freeman <f at ke1g.mv.com> wrote:
>
> Bill McGonigle writes:
>> So, Norvig is saying ...
>
> I'm not confident in his speed comparisons.  Looking at his
> sample program written in both lisp and python, I'm pretty sure that
> most python programmers wouldn't approach the underlying problem in
> that way.

  It is very difficult to make "apples to apples" comparisons between
programming language for this reason.  As with human language, the
language itself influences our thinking patterns.  LISP fans tend to
approach everything recursively, because recursion is fundamental to
LISP.  Smalltalk fans turn everything into objects.  While said fans
often argue their approach is the right way, that isn't the point. 
The point is that if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to
look like a nail.

  Larry Wall once said, "A Perl program is correct if it gets the job
done before your boss fires you".  There's a lot of wisdom in that
statement.  In particular, it seems clear that the qualities of the
programmer makes a much bigger difference then the qualities of the
programming language.  Given that, the best programming language to
use to solve a problem is likely the one you know best.

  'course, that means I should probably do all my programming in Turbo
Pascal.  ;-)

END. { -- Ben Scott }