"Kevin G. Rhoads" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
I'm really not interested in whether it can be proved for anything,
I'm only interested in giving him the chance he keeps asking for
(intelligent debate, answer all the points, etc.).
If I had to bet real money, I bet that he punts on this one.
Well, I just listed the 19 points that *he* presented as important
language design features (taken from an article written to make
Ada look good, no less). Many of these features are *way* down
on the list for most people (e.g., how many people feel that distributed
computing support is an important part of the *language* [as opposed
to an OS API]?).
If he even bothers to defend the 19 points he's raised, and behaves
appropriately, then maybe we can go on to some of those other points.
Such a discussion *would* be good here because there are a lot of
people working on assemblers that might benefit from such a discussion.
Even going higher level, let's consider the C/C++ vs. Assembly language issue.
Of course assembly is CPU dependent (though not particularly OS or otherwise
hardware dependent); that's a given. But is C/C++ really that hardware independent?
What happens if you try to run C/C++ code on a decimal machine, for example?
(hint: it doesn't work very well.)
Like I said, I just took his 19 points and reformatted them.
I don't agree at all these these features represent the 19 most
important attributes a programming language should have.
That's why I said he had to justify each point.
If, by some weird chance, we do get around to addressing these
19 items, then we can take a look at some other features that
are much more important than many items on this list.
No. When TS fails to respond to each and every point, it will give
me closure. He won't be able to say that I didn't offer to engage in
an "intelligent debate" and discuss each and every point he's raised.
Then I can go about getting some real work done :-)