From: Smelly Pooh (plop at domain redbrick.dcu.ie)
Date: Tue 11 Jul 2000 - 18:21:28 IST
In reply to John P. Looney (Kate)'s flatulent wordings,
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 04:38:04PM +0100, Smelly Pooh mentioned:
> > > Don't trust interpreted ones ;)
> > OK, why OO then? :) I thought you were always one of those people who didn't
> > believe in it? Are you looking to learn a language just for fun (I assume so
> > considering the choice of TOM) or do you want to actually get payed doing it?
> No - I don't like C++ - I've been using incr TCL (OO TCL) a lot this
> year, and love it. When I'm writing C, I always write in an OO manner..
I'm not a big fan of TCL, I hate its string philosophy, I hate the way it
evaluates expressions, I just hate its overall structure. I never stuck with
it long enough to graduate to incr TCL though, is that a big difference?
> > > 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.
> > Assuming you mean native compilable as opposed to byte-code compilable
> > wouldn't you need to worry about architecture then? (possibly even lib
> > versions)
> Exactly. I don't like telling people "have the interpreter" etc.
Yes but instead you'll be telling them, have this hardware and this OS (and
possibly OS versions too if there were a recent binary format change such as
a.out -> elf, or library versions such as the glibc changes)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:51 GMT