"Paulo Pinto" <pj...@progtools.org> wrote in message news:jaafb1$1u20$1...@digitalmars.com... > Am 19.11.2011 21:22, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: >> >> Well, the vast majority of the time I come across a slow, bloated app, >> it's >> from a VM or otherwise dymanic language. The vast majority of the time I >> come across a lean, zippy app, it's from something like C/C++/D/etc. >> Whatever the exact reasons, the former group of langauges tends to lean >> towards inefficient approaches, and the latter group tends to lean >> towards >> more efficient approaches. (I try to avoid calling the things like >> C#/Ruby/Java/etc high-level, since I consider D to be just as high-level, >> if >> not more - it's just that D is *also* more low-level, too) > > Sure you are right, but that is because most developers nowadays don't > learn properly how to code. >
I still think there's more to it than just that, but I do share your pessimism on the quality of most programmers. > In my line of work, one of the reasons why we make static analysis tools > part of the build process is to force developers to code properly. > > Sometimes I ask myself what some of our developers were doing at the > university. > I would never trust a programmer whose only experience is classroom and homework. Luckily though, programming is one of those things you can get real non-school experience in without actually being employed in the field. (Many other fields have a chicken-and-egg problem in that regard.) >> >> Interesting point. Although, it is a balancing act: From what I hear, JVM >> is >> considered to have a top-notch GC (no doubt due in part to it's lack of >> low-level ability), but I bet you'd be hard-pressed to get our >> reinterpret-cast-Foo example or codecs/filter/rasterizers/etc (assuming >> you >> actually wanted to ;)) to run as fast in Java as in D. >> > > That is the reason I tend to favour polyglot programming. As a possible > example, I would rather write the majority of the application in Java and > leave the codec implemented in C, while calling it via JNI. > See, I've never really been a fan of that style. Yea, it's a good thing to do when necessary, but I always favor using a more general-purpose langauge (big part of what drew me to D) than constantly switching langauges, or ending up in a language-soup project. I find polyglot programming to be a big pain. That way you have to deal with things like interop, and mentally switching gears to the other langauge (that's a fairly high-overhead context switch). > This is how we code most applications in my line of work. > I don't know what line of work you're in, but I do a lot of web stuff and it's the same thing here. That's one of the many things I dislike about web dev: Can't do anything without swapping between twenty different lanaguges. > Anyway, this was the reason I was against referrin to C# in the language > slogan. If you start comparing against other languages, in the eyes of the > receiver you already lost, most time. > > Surely you need to compare, but that comes afterwards after the person > has got some interest to find more about the language.