On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 12:49 +0000, Brad Macpherson wrote: > G'day Gordon, > > On 23 Feb 2015, at 12:16, Gordon Scott wrote: > > > Then again, it also seems to me that we've not really progressed very > > far with tools. Lisp(58!), Prolog(72), Smalltalk(80), perl(87), tcl(88), > > Python(89+), Java(91), Ruby(99). > > I can't speak for the other languages in your list but Perl has > continued to progress since 1987 with higher-order Perl (functional > programming) and Moose (object-oriented Perl done well) being 2 major > changes to the way applications are built on Perl 5. Just look at the > plethora of application frameworks and reinvented wheels on CPAN; > actually that can be a pain in the backside sometimes, maybe we need an > AI to help sort the wheat from the chaff :-)
I hadn't meant to imply they hadn't moved on. In particular, most have now at least some OO capability. > > Actually that's a bit depressing. > > I dunno, I think it's a tribute to the languages' designers and users that > they've lasted so well. Oh, most certainly that! Again I hadn't in any way meant to imply that perhaps I didn't think that most or all of those languages and the authors' achievements are very good. Still more so with C, which is still very much alive and well where many other languages have fallen into obscurity. There can some truth to the criticisms of C and perl, that the former is a "write only language" and the latter is a "write once, read never language". When that's true, it's the programmer's fault. :-) Gordon. -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------
