[linux-elitists] Opera beta for linux available

Mr.Bad mr.bad@pigdog.org
Fri Oct 6 19:19:30 PDT 2000


>>>>> "DS" == Deirdre Saoirse <deirdre@deirdre.net> writes:

    DS> However, I disagree. As a writer, dialogue is not my only
    DS> tool. As a woodworker, I don't just use a table saw. Each tool
    DS> has a set of best uses, a set of good uses and a set of
    DS> inappropriate uses. I see computer languages a lot like
    DS> that.

I don't. True, as a writer, dialogue is not your only tool. But I bet
you'd be kind of pissed if you asked someone, "What's a synonym for
'beaver dam'?" and they said, "Oh, CHEROKEE has a beautiful word for
that. You should learn Cherokee first, then figure out that good word,
and then re-write your piece in Cherokee."

Yes, all programming languages have their value -- rarely intrinsic to
the language itself, but more often due to platforms they've been
ported to, the quality of the implementations, and the extensions that
have been provided.

Sure, sometimes there's syntactic constructs that make things easier
-- but, really, if you're just getting a job done, does it really
matter whether you say:

        for gar in spock:
                jed(gar)

rather than

        (for-each jed spock)

Really? Really really? Or is it rather just picky aesthetics? (Having
a nice language where you can extend the syntax makes even syntax
differences fairly moot.)

I dunno, I think Mean Gene has a valid point.

~Mr. Bad

-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 /\____/\   Mr. Bad <mr.bad@pigdog.org>
 \      /   Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ | *Stay*Real*Bad*
 |  (X \x)   
 (    ((**) "If it's not bad, don't do it.
  \  <vvv>   If it's not crazy, don't say it."
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




More information about the linux-elitists mailing list