Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Which ones? I'm fond of some of the "write only" languages, like Brainf*ck and Whitespace.
|
All of them. They're so machine inefficient. I get so tired of the "throw some more hardware at it, hardware's cheap" attitude. |
The problem is, hardware
is cheap. The scarce resource is developer time, especially with ever shortening release cycles.
It's simply not
possible to handle the demand for applications in Assembler. And few of the object oriented languages you rail about will see widespread adoption. They are experiments, designed to address specific problem domains. A few may see wider adoption if they address a big enough problem set in a better way than existing languages.
Some of them may not be as inefficient as you think.
Quote:
Some of those same people then tell me how bad greenhouse warming is, while requiring honkin' big server farms to handle their wildly inefficient coding languages...
(I'll go quietly, officer.)
|
That's self correcting, as power requirements are an increasing concern. Not just the power to run the servers, but the power to drive the A/C all of those boxes generating heat require. Reducing power consumption is a major industry goal.
And you would see the same growth of demand and big honking server farms no matter what language everyone coded in. There is simply an almost insatiable demand for new applications and machines to run them.
______
Dennis