Programming language

[Dave Williams]

-> NOT subject to the frustrations of the VERY regimented structure of
-> the other high level languages;  but, much of that structure is
-> available should you desire it.

 Just like a mechanic has more than one wrench, a programmer should be
able to handle more than one language.  In many cases, the language
itself is secondary to the specific *implementation* of the language,
things like, "will this sucker generate code small enough to stuff in my
EPROM?" or "how much does this sucker cost, anyway?"  The latter figured
heavily in my rejection of various microcontroller boards; I'm not going
to "license" someone's proprietary tinyBASIC or tinyC implementation for
$695 to run on their $89 board.  Are they in the software business or
the hardware business?

 Most modern language interpretations - even many COBOLs and FORTRANs
- allow direct memory and port addressing, interrupts, and whatnot.
The rest of them have been borrowing ideas from each other to the point
that few implementations have the restrictions of the old days when the
languages were "pure."

====dave.williams at chaos.lrk.ar.us========================DoD#978=======
  can you help me...help me get out of this place?...slow sedation...
ain't my style, ain't my pace...giving me a number...NINE, SEVEN, EIGHT
==5.0 RX7 -> Tyrannosaurus RX! == SAE '82 == Denizens of Doom M/C '92==