Programming Languages

[Guest.Visitor]

If you want to see how various languages compare with each other, check this out on <a href="http://www.spr.com/library/0langtbl.htm"> Programming Languages </a>

[J.Pluta]

<font color=blue>On Wednesday, February 24, 1999, 10:45 AM, Tom Conover wrote: If you want to see how various languages compare with each other, check this out on <a > href="http://www.spr.com/library/0langtbl.htm"> Programming Languages </a> </font><hr> It's a pretty good table. I like the fact that RPG III is given a rating of 5.75; not too bad. The only thing I don't like about funciton point analysis (my old boss Jim Franch was always a big proponent of FPA) is that it doesn't take into account code reuse, specifically the reuse gained by inheritance. As such, it's pretty useless when measuring object oriented languages like Java. <a href="//www.zappie.net/java?phpMyAdmin=MzvdqLOMiN7HL4yz2OU82BJvkG9"><img > src="//www.zappie.net/java/_derived/index.htm_cmp_zero110_vbtn_p.gif" width="140" height="60" border="0" alt="Zappie's Java Home" align="middle"></a>

[David Abramowitz]

Talk about your subjectivity. How did they determine the <u>level</u> each language would fall into. And how about the lines of code per <u>point</u>! Using this criteria, GW Basic would be at the top of the list in the "Hello World" test: 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" RUN What test was used, and for which functions?? I seriously doubt that given a specific business task, that you would need fewer lines of code using C++, than any variety of RPG from II on up. One thing left out was the time necessary to produce a meaningful line of code. Having worked with Powerpoint; VB; and C++ coders, my observation was that actual code is not produced as efficiently as COBOL, and RPG coders. But then again, according to the chart, we should all be using Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS! David Abramowitz

[Guest.Visitor]

This is a religious subject; I classify code more by its Maintainability than by any other <U>subjective</U> criteria and that depends more on the cod-ER than on the name of the coding system... I know of COBOL and even RPG that is easy to maintain and adapt to changing uses and incorporation of new functions. Another religious facet of computer languages is this: everytime the new, universal language comes along the net result is just another SECT <HR> ...... <pre> <H4> Bob Hamilton TEXAS BUSINESS SYSTEMS 736 Pinehurst Richardson, Texas 75080 <h4> </pre></h4></h4>

[Guest.Visitor]

On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 05:35 AM, Bob Hamilton wrote: This is a religious subject; Another religious facet of computer languages is this: everytime the new, universal language comes along the net result is just another SECT <HR> ...... Bob, I have never heard it referred to in the religious sense, but it seems appropriate. Every person that codes has their preferences and personal relationship with the language they choose. Just trying to keep up....

[David Abramowitz]

On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 05:35 AM, Bob Hamilton wrote: This is a religious subject <hr> Perhaps then, we should not discuss it at all?!?!? David Abramowitz

[Guest.Visitor]

><font color="#000099">On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 05:35 AM, Bob Hamilton wrote: This is a religious subject </font> <font color="#0000CC">On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 07:32 AM, David Abramowitz wrote: Perhaps then, we should not discuss it at all?!?!? </font> Wot! And spoil the fun.... ;-| Derek

[Guest.Visitor]

><font color="#000099">On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 05:35 AM, Bob Hamilton wrote: This is a religious subject </font> <font color="#0000CC">On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 07:32 AM, David Abramowitz wrote: Perhaps then, we should not discuss it at all?!?!? </font> On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 01:43 PM, Derek Butland wrote: Wot! And spoil the fun.... ;-| Derek <hr> "UMMEEVVVAAALLL","UMMCCHHAAIINN"- pardon me, my SECT says I should meditate before opening mouth.;) 'Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue' - Dilbert

[Guest.Visitor]

VLINK="#551A8B" ALINK="#FF0000"> * <font color purple>On Friday, February 26, 1999, 05:17 AM, Jo Ann Burelle wrote: </font> ><font color="#000099" >On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 05:35 AM, Bob Hamilton wrote: This is a religious subject </font> <font color="#0000CC" >On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 07:32 AM, David Abramowitz wrote: Perhaps then, we should not discuss it at all?!?!? </font> On Thursday, February 25, 1999, 01:43 PM, Derek Butland wrote: Wot! And spoil the fun.... ;-| Derek <hr> <font color > purple>"UMMEEVVVAAALLL","UMMCCHHAAIINN"- pardon me, my SECT says I should meditate before opening mouth.;) <hr> </font> Its OK I'll use my Purple IMac when posting :)

[frankgw@adelphia.net]

And the winner is RPG! Well, that's my interpretation of the table. Just an old mainframer caught in the Web!