Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:33:27 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
John Korb writes:
>I guess I'm one of the throw-backs that likes and still uses SPL (and
>SPLASH!) on a daily basis. "C" is one language that I have never taken
>much of a liking to - it seems to all to often do things I don't want it to
>do to "help me out", sort of lake that blasted paper-clip in MS WORD.
Not to start a language war, but C has one thing that SPL lacks, and that
causes SPL programmers to waste huge amounts of time in workarounds:
structures. The kludge of using a specially-named pointer with a bunch of
DEFINE statements is acceptable when working with a bootstrap compiler,
but HP really should have released the later versions of SPL II, which
fixed the deficiency. I seem to recall that SPLash! has both structures
and parameterized macros, making it a much more viable language than SPL.
-- Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc. (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142 | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028 | It gives a lovely light.
btoback AT optc.com | -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Mail sent to [log in to unmask] will be inspected for a
fee of US$250. Mailing to said address constitutes agreement to
pay, including collection costs.
|
|
|