On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:40:51PM -0500, Joe Nardone wrote:
>This means, no D, no Erlang, etc. etc.
I definately agree with 'no Erlang, etc...'. Erlang is a very "different"
language and takes some effort to learn. D is a different story, though. It's
very simple to learn, easy to read/write, and efficient. It's also compatible
with C and C++ libraries. It's safe (i.e. string aware, supports runtime
bounds checking, etc.). It's also got a gcc frontend, which means it has many
of the tools available to C/C++.
Also, bear in mind that I mentioned D because Manuel mentioned that Java was
'the simplest language with C like syntax.' In my opinion, D is simpler, more
powerful, and easier to learn. It also has many other advantages for our
purposes. At the very least, it merits a few people looking over
documentation/code samples. (I also mentioned Limbo, but that was for
argument's sake. It would probably be more trouble than it's worth, unless we
decided to go with Inferno or Plan9 [which we won't]).
A physician's ability is inversely proportional
to his availability.