[antlr-interest] Re: build issues: bytecode assembly generation
joanpujol at gmail.com
Sat Oct 23 07:01:38 PDT 2004
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:25:38 -0400, Don Caton
<dcaton at shorelinesoftware.com> wrote:
> > Given developers with the same level of proficiency and
> > experience with C++ and Java, most will be able to produce an
> > application like ANTLR much more quickly and easily with Java
> > than C++.
> Well, with all due respect I'm not sure how you can make that assertion.
> IMO, it depends to a large degree on the individual programmer. If any
> particular language was significantly easier to use, everyone would be using
> it. In any case, this is a philosophical issue on which we may simply
I don't agree with you. I have programmed with C++ and Java. And I
think that for a medium/good programmer Java is more "productive" than
C++ (I don't say better, better implies things like efficiency) .
Garbage collection is a lot more productive than manage the memory yourself.
A NullPointerException is better than a SegmentationFault.
Java has a VERY good standard library, and well documented. C++ has a
standard library but with some holes that are system dependent. The
only think that I like more from C++ standard library is STL.
C++ compilers aren't perfect. A thing that compiles with g++ possibly
won't compile (without modifications) with MSVC.
C++ needs more experienced programmers. Look at three Efective C++
books from Scott Meyers. To understand them you need a very high level
of C++ programming. And a medium programmer can look the Effective
Java book and understand it. Then to make reliable C++ code you have
to be aware of a lot of thinks that you haven't to do with Java.
Joan Jesús Pujol Espinar
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
antlr-interest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
More information about the antlr-interest