On Friday 18 August 2006 06:56, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:48:24PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > So are some widespread programming languages. If you blindly follow bad > > examples and bad styles you can dynamite yourself happily without even > > noticing, but that does not make them disused or abandoned (on the > > contrary some of them have notoriously prolonged life cycle ;-)... it > > just matters who is using them and how. > > People without the skill to program in error-prone languages are > encouraged to use more idiot-proof ones instead.
The human itself is prone to error, and even skilled people could make funny and hard to detect errs, based on their current mood, attitude and character if you want, which tends to be impermanent. > Why isn't the same done for build frameworks? /* I rather wrote about their rŠµsemblance, not their divergence */ Probably because masses first invent and face the error-prone solution, then ascertain the fact that they are enough error-prone to be used by mortals, which could take quite long periods of time needed to accumulate that experience, and then strive to find out and learn about more robust approaches. E.g. if Ada predated C, we shouldn't see some of the human-nature based errors in UNIX, when you meant foo, but it easily turned to be bar instead ;-)... I don't believe this applies to autotools, even though beasts like scons seems to be better imho leaving lesser room to dig in errors. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
