Re: work times & accommodation @tokyo, WAS: Re: [tlug] Embedded linux dev wanting to find work in Tokyo.. Seeking advice.

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:14:03 +0900
Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:

> On 2008-07-27 11:52 +0200 (Sun), Attila Kinali wrote:
> 
> > Can you elaborate, why you think that the combination of all
> > three languages isn't good?
> 
> It can be better, but there are two issues here:
> 
> 1. All three languages together are still missing some very powerful,
> useful and productivity-enhancing features, such as a good type checking
> system.

Ok, i'll give you a counter example here. Somewhen, back in the
days, when Java was still a child, g++ just sucked and python
wasn't on the horizon, i started to learn perl (i don't remember
the exact reasons anymore). After some time perl started to replace
all other languages i knew (C,C++,Java,...) for stuff i wrote in my
free time, because i was a lot quicker in perl than in any other
language. Even some ill posed problems that would have been better
solved in C/C++ were done in perl. Why? because the language had
a lack of one very important feature: strict type checking and allowed
me to write stuff the way i wanted (may it be OO[1], procedural, functional
or a mix there of) instead of being in my way because of some
philiosophical decision made by the inventor of the language.
 
> 2. Combining strengths into one language works better. I can write in
> Python to get small, clear programs, or in C++ to get fast programs, but
> Haskell gives me both in one language.

Hmm.. i don't know about python, but i can get perl programs to
a speed level where they can rival with C without problems.
(of course, there are pathological cases where C is the fastest language)

> > And yes, i've read the rest of the thread, but couldn't find any
> > arguments why they are worse than others, only that they are and that
> > haskell would be better (but not why).
> 
> I think it's self-evident that some languages can provide significantly
> more productivity than others; compare assembler to almost anything
> else, for example. Once you accept that, the only matter is to start
> comparing languages.

I compared a lot of languages and too much of my precious time
is spend on learning new languages. But you still haven't answered
the question. You told us multiple times that there are better
languages than C++/Java/Python, but not _what_is_bad_about_this_combination_.

IMHO it's a pretty good mix. If you need the speed of a compiled
language, you use C++, if you need the portability[2] you can use Java,
if you need a quick prototyping language that still scales to large
programs, you can use Python. And all three are similar enough
that you don't have to think in completely different ways if you
switch languages.


				Attila Kinali

[1] Yes, i know that perl's OO system just plain sucks. But it works well
enough for most problems.
[2] Java isn't realy portable, at least not anymore than C is, contrary
to common believe.

-- 
The true CS students do not need to know how to program.
They learn how to abstract the process of programming to
the point of making programmers obsolete.
		-- Jabber in #holo