Tom I somehow mist your response
Tom Berakis wrote:Scripting Language? Not scripting language?
Seriously, what the hell are you on about.
Relax, just a discussion not a fight
Tom Berakis wrote:You want to make software sing and dance and do what you want, you can extend it. You dont want to? Forget it, it matters not.
To me its matters(i'm a developer)
It's a bit like: SW render vs OGL render, in some scenarios OGL is more suited and vice cersa.
Make sense?
Tom Berakis wrote:The language is irrelevant. Or may from now on I'll avoid using products made with rosewood, because it's a scripting wood, where mahogany is a real business wood?
Rosewood tends to have more overtones , whereas mahogany has a more "fundamental" tone with emphasis on mid-range frequencies, resulting in a more woody tone.
When mahogany is more suited, why not used it?
But seriously. Yes the language is irrelevant, but not the features/properties of such a laugauge, such as static typing, inheritance and tooling for example.
Tom Berakis wrote:Dude, seriously, there are more important differentiations in life.
Agreed
Tom Berakis wrote:And while I don't mind robust language discussions... C# is more or less dead. At least in our industry.
Last time i checked C#, besides c(++) is
the language in windows environments.
I took C# as an example, because some of it's properties, not for it's dialect.
What i mean is why not using a language environment such as .net for the more complex algorithms, because (IMHO) scripting is not always the right tool.
I hope i cleared this up, English is not my native language(no pun intended)
Regards,
Remco Johannes van Grevenbroek