[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: "Which Technologies Matter?" & xml processing model

• To: uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji)
• Subject: Re: "Which Technologies Matter?" & xml processing model
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:49:21 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: clbullar@i... ("Bullard, Claude L (Len)"), andrzej@c... ('andrzej@c...'), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200203191542.g2JFg1Z10990@l...> from "Uche Ogbuji" at Mar 19, 2002 08:42:01 AM

Uche Ogbuji scripsit:

> Measuring the success of programming languages is very hard,  

Agreed.

> C is *by far* the most 
> successful language ever.  Whether longevity of active usage, total number of 
> LOC deployed, number of language implementations, number of derivative 
> languages, variety of practical uses applied, words written about it, etc...

For longevity, we have Fortran and Lisp.  For LOC, it's gotta be Cobol.
Implementations, could be any of those three.  What C implementations?
pcc, gcc, Microsoft, a few others long dead?  Fortran and Cobol were
typically written from scratch with each new (and incompatible) computer.

On the last two metrics, C probably wins.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "Which Technologies Matter?" & xml processing model
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Re: "Which Technologies Matter?" & xml processing model s...
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Which Technologies Matter?" & xml processing model s...
• Next by Date: RE: XSLT and the 80/20 point (was RE: Tim Bray on "Which Technologies Matter?")
• Previous by thread: Re: "Which Technologies Matter?" & xml processing model s...
• Next by thread: Re: "Which Technologies Matter?" & xml processing model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread