On 28-07-2012 10:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:45:19 +0200
Alex Rønne Petersen <a...@lycus.org> wrote:
On 28-07-2012 09:36, Stuart wrote:
On Friday, 27 July 2012 at 21:59:33 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
- Scheme
- Haskell
- OCaml
- F#
- Erlang
- Clojure
- Some C and C++ compilers (gcc, Intel, MSVC in release mode)
- Most commercial Lisp compilers
So, as I said, nothing you can write a real program in - except
possibly for F#. The possibility of "some" C compilers supporting
it doesn't mean you can rely on the feature being present.
Are you serious........?
I would tend to agree with him, unless you're being overly literal.
Obviously you *can* do real programs in C/C++, hell I've done it (and I
am doing it, much to my dismay) - but it's notoriously painful. As for
the rest, yea, sure, stuff *has* been written in them, but regardless,
most of them still just aren't *realistically* suitable for most
software development.
It's just like how somebody once write a high-precision Pi calculator
in MS Batch. They pulled it off, and it works, but that doesn't mean
Batch is realistically suitable as a numeric processing language.
Writing real software in, for example, Haskell is like calculating
high-precision Pi in Batch. It can be done, but it takes a masochist.
Pointing out the most extreme cases is not really a good way to make a
point about language usability IMO.
Most of the languages mentioned are very usable for the areas they were
intended to be used in. Use them in an area they aren't meant for and
you're pretty much asking for whatever you end up with. Batch sure as
hell wasn't meant for calculation of *any* kind...
Of course C and C++ are painful. No argument there. But that's due to
them being designed decades ago. Erlang, OCaml, Clojure, etc are fairly
sane. Scheme, too, if you (don't (mind (the (parentheses))). :)
(I know, I know, that isn't valid Scheme...)
--
Alex Rønne Petersen
a...@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
