paul_gr wrote:There is a perception anything that is easy to read and compile is 'scripting' and is inferior to 'real' programming...
I hope the below quote isn't too far off topic. It's an except from from a longer, hilarious description of how different disciplines go about hunting elephants in Africe. I was reminded of it because I think the last sentence speaks to low level programming language snobbery:
"MATHEMATICIANS hunt elephants by going to Africa, throwing out everything that is not an elephant, and catching one of whatever is left.
EXPERIENCED MATHEMATICIANS will attempt to prove the existence of at least one unique elephant before proceeding to step 1 as a subordinate exercise.
COMPUTER SCIENTISTS hunt elephants by exercising Algorithm A:
1. Go to Africa.
2. Start at the Cape of Good Hope.
3. Work northward in an orderly manner, traversing the continent
alternately east and west.
4. During each traverse pass,
a. Catch each animal seen.
b. Compare each animal caught to a known elephant.
c. Stop when a match is detected.
EXPERIENCED COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS modify Algorithm A by placing a known elephant in Cairo to ensure that the algorithm will terminate.
ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE PROGRAMMERS prefer to execute Algorithm A on their hands and knees."
Actually, I don't think that the article was all that criticle of LiveCode. Maybe I misread it, but it seemed to show that LC stacks up pretty well alongside the competition when everything is taken into account.
Gene