<language> broken (was: OO)

[Fernando D. Mato Mira]

Tim Peters wrote:

> OK!  Now we know the answer Fernando is looking for:  Tcl is fatally broken
> because its syntax differs from Lisp's <0.9 wink>.

Response to 0.1 non-wink:

No!  I wanted to know if there were any theoretical reasons for
tcl-bashing (that some people bash it because it lacks data structures,
I can understand, but there the pragmatic evaluation is not the same
in different contexts).

Of all the languages I know that I mentioned, the only one I can say is BAD is
C++. And 200K lines plus a high personal cost entitle me to say it. In spite
of that, the STL taught me a lot about how to program
`ADT style'. However, I still don't know how useful that actually is when you
have a language with type inference. But what I _do_ learned from that once
you find out the proper way to write C++ is that static typing without
inference is BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN (you really wear out your keyboard).
Note that C++ could be fixed to use inference, but that won't save it
(overloading, casts, you name it).

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html