On 10/25/07, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lan Barnes wrote: > > > I don't recall dragging my HW problems into my innocent reflection that, > > IMO, C/C++ programmers far to often reach for their accustomed tools > > ignoring the greater productivity available in scripting languages. My HW > > has nothing to do with that. > > Oh do I hear this ... > > I've been working with an open-source MIPS hardware core. All the > auxiliary programs are C written for Windows. > > They are all multi-hundred line C programs to do something that could be > done with 10-20 lines of Perl, Python, Tcl, etc. > > -a
I am in basic agreement with using an appropriate scripting language whenever possible. I would say in defense of C, after one builds up from the low level, then one is effectively working with a scripting languge that just has C as its syntax. One is using C functions and libraries that do mostly the same thing that the scripting language is doing. In some ways it is more economical intellectually to simply stay in C. Multi hundred line programs do _not_ have to be inpenetrable if they are well written. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
