Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 02:46:56 +0100 From: cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Victor Subervi <victorsubervi@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Low Level Language Suggestions: OT Message-ID: <20080101024656.2e15f78b@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <477918B3.4090101@pacific.net.sg> References: <4dc0cfea0712310757u7a970bb0rb2b29a931ad9767b@mail.gmail.com> <477918B3.4090101@pacific.net.sg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:28:35 +0800 Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > Hi, > > Victor Subervi wrote: > > toward a low-level language. I am not good in any :( I'm thinking > > Java's > > Assembler? > > > probably my best bet, just because there are more Java programmers > > out there than any other language (I think). But what about C++ or > > C#? Your comments > > I would use a combination out of C and C++. > > Even if there are more Java programmers out there, they not have the > experience of the most C/C++ programmers. > > Erich Yes, C/C++ would be ideal as low level language combo. But a hybrid approach is not bad either, e.g. C/C++ for bottlenecks that ought to be fast, Python for everything else. You can nicely mix and match Python and C/C++ with tools like SWIG or with the Boost.Python C++ library. Give it a try, you won't regret it. Even if only while developping pure C/C++ code, it ain't bad to use a hybrid approach for unit testing, rapid prototyping etc. during development. Happy new year to all. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080101024656.2e15f78b>