Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.super,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jfox
From: jfox@netcom.com (Jeff Fox)
Subject: Re: superior(?) programming languages
Message-ID: <jfoxE2812v.AzJ@netcom.com>
Sender: jfox@netcom23.netcom.com
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <32ACC7FB.126@OntheNet.com.au> 
     <58k7oi$j0e@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <58kbg9$4hf@news.unocal.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:25:43 GMT
Lines: 29
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.arch:73184 comp.sys.super:7620 comp.lang.lisp:24159

In article <58kbg9$4hf@news.unocal.com> 
           stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <58k7oi$j0e@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
>Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>What's great about C is that it embodies a KISS principle which we
>>frequently need to be reminded. 

Compared to what?  I would say C is in direct opposition to the
Keep It Sweet and Simple principle, unless you are comparing
it to C++ or JAVA or something even more complex.  I will agree
with you when you show me a C that can compile itself in a couple
of K of memory.

>In the KISS department, JAVA out-"C"s both C and C++,
>although its performance currently sucks.
>I am encouraged how much smaller my codes are in JAVA
>for equivalent functionally in C or C++.

It seems you judge complexity of the language by the length
of application source, while I would use the size of the 
compiler source.  When I see that many megabytes of source I don't
think of it as an example of simplicity.

Certainly C++ is even further away from KISS than C, but I would
say JAVA is in between.  If you think these things are examples of
KISS what are you comparing them to?

Jeff Fox

