Warp wrote:
> Bernd Fuhrmann <Sil### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> 
>>>  Then in your opinion for example Lisp and Prolog are not true
>>>programming languages?
>>>
>>
>>I hate them, yes.
> 
> 
>   How does you hating them affect in any way the fact whether they are
> true programming languages or not?

It doesn't. "Being a true programming language" is not defined. If you 
mean Turing-complete was a good sign of true programming languages just 
have a look at brainfuck (http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/). No 
sane person will use that language to code any serious software. So you 
wouldn't consider that a real programming language. On the other hand: 
What if you used such a programming language for 40 years and you could 
do things faster with that awkward programming language then with any 
other? You'd certainly consider it a real programming language. So what? 
It's a matter of opinion. So why should we argue about it?

But there are still facts: Some things just save you a lot of time, like 
OOP. Modularization is important. So we should have a good look at all 
those little nice features of all kinds of programming languages that 
allow a better form of modularization. These things should go into 
POVRay SDL or any officially recommended frontend for it.

>   That's like saying that you hate toyotas and thus toyotas are not cars.

Come on. I did'nt say that. They are considered real programming 
languages by many people. I know that. But I still don't like them. It's 
just my opinion. Call it a feeling. I once had to do a couple of things 
with Scheme and I was really pretty upset because of certain things. So 
I will not consider them as a true alternative for C(++) for my 
programming work. Other people will think different. I can live with 
that (as long as I don't have to mess up with their code).

Regards,
Bernd Fuhrmann

Post a reply to this message