|
Re: Perl Vs C,C++
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Mar 10, 2003 at 20:53 UTC
|
Personally I think that the color scheme in Perl is far superior to C++, and far less drab than C (all that gun metal grey everywhere, sheesh!).
Oh lets not forget that 'Perl' is four chars, 'C' is only one and 'C++' is three, So obviously Perl is better. :-)
---
demerphq
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Ha! Now That's a good reply!
Seriously though, asking is X better than Y and is that as good as Z when it comes to programming is counter-productive. demerphq's response is as good as it's going to get. I advise you to try all the languages you list and then think for yourself, people are rarely unbiased about these things.
Good luck!
| [reply] |
Re: Perl Vs C,C++
by data64 (Chaplain) on Mar 10, 2003 at 21:02 UTC
|
See Perl Vs. C and C vs perl.
The answer really depends on what you are trying to do.
Just a tongue-tied, twisted, earth-bound misfit. -- Pink Floyd
| [reply] |
Re: Perl Vs C,C++
by derby (Abbot) on Mar 10, 2003 at 20:54 UTC
|
one is a typeless interpreted language
one is a typed compiled language
one is a strongly typed compiled language
(I'll leave it as an exercise to determine which is which)
It would be more helpful to have more context -- especially since these X-vs-Y(-vs-Z)
questions tend to denigrate very quickly.
-derby | [reply] |
Re: Perl Vs C,C++
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Mar 10, 2003 at 22:22 UTC
|
Not just on what you're trying to do, but on what your requirements are. If you're writing code for a pacemaker, even C might not be good enough. If you're writing a doo-dad to index your MP3's, you're not going to write it in machine code. :-)
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement. Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified. | [reply] |
|
|
So, what language *would* you use to program a pacemaker? I'm not sure myself really, but I think I'd much rather go with a high-level language; C (and, even more, assembly) would be too prone to hard-to-catch errors for my taste for something like that. Perl may not be the worst solution after all. :)
--
mowgli
| [reply] |
|
|
Most embedded development is done in C variants with a ton of ASM optimizations. A lot is done in ASM, too.
The problem with high-level languages is that the first assumption is that resources are plentiful. Embedded devices do not have plentiful resources. In fact, they are the last bastion of the C-64 type of development, where your "data" might also have "instructions", just to squeeze a few more bytes or milliseconds.
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement. Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.
| [reply] |
|
|
So, what language *would* you use to program a pacemaker?
When you start talking about embedded devices, your choices are very limited. I suspect a lot of embedded device development is done in C/C++ or assembly.
Just a tongue-tied, twisted, earth-bound misfit. -- Pink Floyd
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I'm sure there are plenty of people who are masochistic enough to want to write something like an MP3 indexer in machine code. OK, maybe not plenty of people. But a few. One?
I bet if there is anyone who woul do this then they are really masochistic and did it in straight hex.
;-)
---
demerphq
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|