On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:22:19 +0100 Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > Agreed. One issue with the talk is non-acceptance of "the right tool for > > the job" (the speaker literally says he's tired of that phrase). There > > is one best tool - and that's Ruby. Ahem. > > I find this issue interesting. I think the "the right tool for the job" > is justification for the existence of multiple languages, but on the > other hand, I'd agree with him that it's overused. > > If you consider all problem domains, and then ask: what is the minimum > number of languages required to be "the best tool" or "close enough to > the best tool" for all those jobs? For sure the minimum number is > 1. > But I suspect the minimum isn't very high, essentially because most real > world tasks involve a combination of several problem domains. > I think the minimum might be as small as five, and I seriously doubt > it's more than a dozen.
I agree with that. This number is around 3 ;-) "the right tool for the job" is about meaningless for me, since noone would make me program with 99% of existing PLs even if they were proved to be "it". I rather believe in "the right tool for the right person". Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com