Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems
Date: 13 Apr 2024 19:28:47 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <uvemdf$rnl$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <slrnv1lac8.3s4.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain> <Java-20240413181713@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <XnsB153940A1F442hueydlltampabayrrcom@135.181.20.170> <C++-20240413195002@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="8281"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 1565

When I think about the utility of scaling systems down, I think more about
libraries, applications and operating systems than programming languages and
development tools.

But having used programming languages such as PL/1 and Ada where the language
features were so extensive that no one programmer really knew all of them 
and everyone programmed in their own subset, I can say that giant languages
with a lot of features lead to maintenance issues in spite of their advantages
for initial coding.  Scaling down may help.

And who ever thought it was a good idea to add pointers to Fortran 90.
Engineers should never be allowed to touch pointers.  This is like giving
a Zippo lighter to a baby.  Scaling down is needed here.
--scott


-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."