From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net>
Subject: Re: Injecting some sense into the C++ vs. Lisp debate
Date: 2000/07/19
Message-ID: <3173018312570485@naggum.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 648286977
References: <8knn4v$q21$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 964029544 8879 195.0.192.66 (19 Jul 2000 17:59:04 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2000 17:59:04 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Googleplexation is NOT an option! <deja_pcm@my-deja.com>
| Some of the other major problems that crop up when comparing languages
| are:
| 1. Disparity of experience: Comparing code written by a good
|    programmer with code written by a poor programmer in another
|    language.
| 2. Selective examples: Chosen examples that guarantee one language
|    looks better than another.  Its hard to find language-neutral
|    examples.
| 3. Confusing language clarity with code performance.  You may be
|    more productive in one language than another, and be able to express
|    code more clearly, but that is a whole other issue.
| 4. Human nature.

  These are all very fine ad hominem arguments against language
  comparisons as such, but do you have anything that could be used to
  determine whether these fine arguments do not apply to a particular
  language comparison?  That is, in your view, is a comparison of
  languages possible or do you _always_ interpret a comparison of
  languages as suffering from these problems?

#:Erik
-- 
  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.