On 12/11/10 11:05 AM, so wrote:
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.
The usage of "the right tool for the job" is sometimes just BS.
For example scripting C/C++/D.
You use another language there mostly because you have to. Not because
they are the right tool.
Those are the same ways of saying the same thing. You use C to implement
Ruby's garbage collector. Why? Because you have to. Why again? Because
it's the right tool for the job. In particular, C can do that because it
has pointer arithmetic - a freedom discriminated against by the speaker.
Consistency FTW I guess :o).
Andrei
