ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) (04/08/91)
All other things being equal, I would expect the average quality of programs written in a language to increase along with the price of a typical compiler for that language. Consider: someone who wants to learn to program and doesn't even know enough to have an opinion about what language to use will probably start with a bias toward langauges for which cheap compilers are available. On the other end of the spectrum, languages for which the only available compilers are very expensive will probably be used mostly by people whose employers have paid for said compilers. In other words: cheap compilers are used by random hackers, expensive ones by professionals. I would expect this to be true regardless of the merits of the languages themselves. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@europa.att.com
diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) (04/10/91)
In article <20176@alice.att.com> ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
ark>All other things being equal, I would expect the average quality
ark>of programs written in a language to increase along with the
ark>price of a typical compiler for that language.
ark>
ark>Consider: someone who wants to learn to program and doesn't even
ark>know enough to have an opinion about what language to use will probably
ark>start with a bias toward langauges for which cheap compilers are
ark>available.
ark>
ark>On the other end of the spectrum, languages for which the only available
ark>compilers are very expensive will probably be used mostly by people
ark>whose employers have paid for said compilers.
ark>
ark>In other words: cheap compilers are used by random hackers, expensive
ark>ones by professionals. I would expect this to be true regardless
ark>of the merits of the languages themselves.
A number of professionals use g++ and other tools that (for some
purposes at least) are not expensive.
Some employers forbid their employees to do professional jobs. The
difficulty of "paying for" reusable software has been another topic
in this newsgroup. At times, I have been forbidden to make code
portable, have seen maintainers strip error-checking or multimorphic
statements (can't say polymorphic in these cases) out of my code, etc.
And on the other hand, expensive compilers have often prevented both
hackers and professionals from gaining expertise in a language; this
has also been a topic in this newsgroup and in others.
Once we get past the training grounds, the cost of compilers might not
have much effect on the average quality of programs.
--
Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) (04/10/91)
In article <20176@alice.att.com> ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes: [...] > >In other words: cheap compilers are used by random hackers, expensive >ones by professionals. I would expect this to be true regardless >of the merits of the languages themselves. >-- It ain't necessarily so :-). We've used a $200 Modula-2 compiler to write hundreds of thousands of code that moves a lot of money around (on the average sixty billion dollars a day - that's BILLIONS with a "b"). We used that compiler, because we thought Modula-2 was a better language than PASCAL or C. After 6 years we are still using Modula-2, and we are very happy with our decision. ...richie -- *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | Richie Bielak (212)-815-3072 | Programs are like baby squirrels. Once | | Internet: richieb@bony.com | you pick one up and handle it, you can't | | Bang: uunet!bony1!richieb | put it back. The mother won't feed it. |
ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr10.040351.24299@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes: > A number of professionals use g++ and other tools that (for some > purposes at least) are not expensive. You miss the point. People with money to spend will sometimes spend it on expensive tools and sometimes not. People without much money to spend probably won't buy expensive tools. This will bias the population in a particular direction, even though there may be some exceptions. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@europa.att.com
cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole) (04/13/91)
Andrew Koenig writes: |> All other things being equal, I would expect the average quality |> of programs written in a language to increase along with the |> price of a typical compiler for that language. |> |> Consider: someone who wants to learn to program and doesn't even |> know enough to have an opinion about what language to use will probably |> start with a bias toward langauges for which cheap compilers are |> available. |> |> On the other end of the spectrum, languages for which the only available |> compilers are very expensive will probably be used mostly by people |> whose employers have paid for said compilers. |> |> In other words: cheap compilers are used by random hackers, expensive |> ones by professionals. I would expect this to be true regardless |> of the merits of the languages themselves. That's a PC sort of statement, isn't it? There are plenty of hackers with too much money to spend on software systems. Inexpensive stuff may be just the right thing for a certain task set -- even though it may have all the features of the higher priced spread. In my days as an IBM junky, I saw lots of large organizations using the most expensive tools for the most underpaid and untalented set of programmers around. You can actually make the reverse observation as well. The most expensive tools are used by the least talented programmers who probably don't know how to use them properly in the first. These folks tend to churn out code that wouldn't pass CS101, but they ARE programmers and they ARE employed and their employers WON'T pay them any better no matter how good they get. But someone else will! The views are not those of anyone who may or may not know me, /Bill