On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David G. Mackay<mackay_d at bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:35 -0700, lincohn john wrote: >> Just curious, why not just use C/C++? thanks in advance ! >> Lincong > > This is a personal opinion, but C++ seems to be an exercise in > masochism. C is basically a high level assembly language. Neither are > all that portable. Granted, for sheer speed, C is probably as good as > you'll get. Speed just isn't as big a factor these days. Who knows, if > they'd had the processing power available today back in the 80's, maybe > we'd all be using pascal p-code systems. If we had the processing power (and all the incredibly cheap HW that exists today), in the 80's, I wouldn't have had to write such efficient assembly language code... Much easier today, with cheap RAM, etc. C++ for an old timer, takes awhile to get an understanding of, because of the OO, but as a book I have says, before OO, approximately 50% of the projects ended in failure. I believe that is on the low side. Never used Pascal (wasn't that a teaching language?, but I did use PL/M-86.