On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 23:28:57 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On 1/7/2012 10:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Not exactly the most informed discussion.
Well, some of their comments _ARE_ spot-on correct...
computerquip did a very good job highlighting the bad points.
rapidcoder failed miserably to provide accurate claims. Most of
the discussion is these two going back and forth (where
computerquip states rapidcoder's inability to argue).
The conclusion that not a systems language is the only thing I
partially disagree with from computerquip. I don't think it can
be used for such at this time, or at least not it a way that is
any better than C (and may even be worse in some situations). But
systems programming is a goal, we just don't have a big enough
section in the community spending time to improve this area.
Sadly there isn't anything new that we can take away from this
discussion.
