User loginNavigation |
Two Languages (high+low level) vs One LanguageI apologize for the unweildy topic, but my musings revolve around this idea: Is the two language approach espoused by Ousterhout workable, or will people inevitably want to do everything in the scripting (err..'dynamic') language? Both Tcl and PHP began life as a way to tie together little bits of C code in a flexible way, but soon took off as languages that many users had no intention of tying to C, although both of course make extensive use of libraries written in C, rather than taking the approach of doing everything in "pure Tcl" or "pure PHP". I happen to like the dual language approach a lot, because it lets me express the right things in the right language. Fast, low level code in C, and then organize everything in Tcl. However, C isn't for everyone, which is one of the reasons why dynamic languages got so popular in the first place. It's easier to use a scripting language, even if it's not as fast. So the tendency is really to try and do as much as possible in that language, and then add C code only where necessary. Other languages seem to aim more for the "do everything myself" approach. Java and Lisp seem to fall into this category. My experience with Erlang is that it has some tendencies in this direction too (Joe Armstrong's X implementation!). In some ways, it's a lot easier to piggyback on an existing, popular language like C or Java if you're doing a scripting language and want to get lots of libraries 'for free', but aside from this, is explicitly pursuing a dual language approach a sensible idea in this day and age, or not? By David N. Welton at 2004-10-18 08:29 | LtU Forum | previous forum topic | next forum topic | other blogs | 10153 reads
|
Browse archives
Active forum topics |
Recent comments
12 weeks 1 day ago
12 weeks 1 day ago
12 weeks 1 day ago
34 weeks 2 days ago
38 weeks 4 days ago
40 weeks 2 days ago
40 weeks 2 days ago
42 weeks 6 days ago
47 weeks 4 days ago
47 weeks 4 days ago