On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 10:51, Scott Chapman wrote:
> On Monday 27 October 2003 07:19, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Scott Chapman wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
[snip]
> I think that the right tool for the job is generally the one you are most
> competent with, in programming languages. Some programmers (the educated &
> experienced variety) may have exposure to enough knowlege about programming
> languages and problems to be solved that they can actually look at a group of
> languages and a problem to be solved and sort out the languages accordingly,
> based solely on the language itself (not external factors around it). I
> honestly doubt that this is the case in the vast majority of cases (except in
> more obvious situations where I may need the speed and control of assembly or
> C vs. the bytecode of Python, for instance). I doubt that very many
> programmers can actually make a reasoned and objective argument that a given
> language will work better for the problem than another. Usually it will be
> based on external factors such as "What code libraries are already available
> that I'll need so I can get it done faster?" and "Which can I write it in
> quickest and best?". This last case is the one that will drive the majority
> of cases, I think, and the answer will be the language I'm most fluent in.
Don't forget the old standby: 'what language(s) are installed on
this machine?' This is a pretty common issue on Big Iron (which
now includes "mini-computers" and big Sun boxen.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"You ask us the same question every day, and we give you the same
answer every day. Someday, we hope that you will believe us..."
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to a reporter
