From: John P. Looney (Kate) (jplooney-ilug at domain online.ie)
Date: Tue 11 Jul 2000 - 16:22:29 IST
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 03:42:40PM +0100, Smelly Pooh mentioned:
> Yeh I looked at it a while back, it's like a higher level version of Objective
> C (Objective C being C with Smalltalk type OO extensions that was quite big
> with NeXT machines) except with a greater emphasis on message passing. The
> only real new thing there is that they try to concentrate on extensible
> classes by letting you tack on methods after class definition. Why exactly
> are you looking for an OO compilable language?
Don't trust interpreted ones ;)
Seriously, I like to think of the two as quite separate, for quite
personal reasons. Tom can be interpreted or compiled, and I *really* like
that.
The main reason is that I can compile a program with the latest version
of the compiler, and send it to someone, and as long as they have the same
basic libs as I do, that's cool.
However, with interpreted ones, they have to have the same version of the
interpreter as you, to avoid one-in-a-hundred problems where you
accidently use the wrong version of an interpreter. The fact that many
distros of linux & solaris still ship with TCL 8.0 (if at all) means I
can't portably use the good namespace support that TCL 8.2 has, for
instance.
However, I'll stick with interpreted ones for fast development, and
anything when sloppy coding could bring down the server - web development
is a good example of this. A bug in a C module would take down the server,
and a bug in TCL will cause an error, and that's it...
Kate
--
The words of the unwary are apt to cause needless pain and bloody violence.
- Zen Master Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:50 GMT