[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SICP & the Dumbing Down of American Comp Sci
-
Subject: Re: SICP & the Dumbing Down of American Comp Sci
-
From: Bruce Tobin <btobin@columbus.rr.com>
-
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:00:10 -0400 (EDT)
-
Organization: Road Runner Columbus
-
References: <7sp42b$71a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <5PWH3.22882$1E2.178395@ozemail.com.au> <AQXH3.94$805.11073@news.uswest.net>
-
Xref: grapevine.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.functional:15516 comp.lang.scheme:26896 comp.lang.dylan:10982
Frank A. Adrian wrote:
>
> Mike Thomas <miketh@ptmnet.com> wrote in message
> news:5PWH3.22882$1E2.178395@ozemail.com.au...
> > C and Java are OK, certainly better than Cobol, Fortran and Basic.
>
> I'd debate you on that. Cobol and Fortran are well suited to their niches
> (batch and simple transaction oriented processing and numerical analysis and
> computation) with basic language constructs that mesh well with them (same
> with APL).
I'll debate YOU on that. Cobol is terrible for its niche. Trying to do
any but the most rudimentary data processing without dynamic memory
allocation is a pain in the *ss.
> Basic, Java, and C have been pushed so far beyond their initial
> niches (instruction, embedded control, and systems programming, resp.), and
> have grown so much "hair" in the process that they are quite ugly by
> comparison.
>
> faa