This thread on programming languages seems waaaay off the CP agenda. But then, so was the rather interesting thread on futures and derivatives... Tim May says:

My conjecture: 70% of all programmers now coding in C and planning to learn C++ would be "better off" (more productive, more maintainable code, fewer reinventings of the low-level wheels, etc.) with higher-level languages. "Rapid prototyping" is another buzz phrase, but an accurate one.

Well, just as I wouldn't recommend using CASE tools without a working knowledge of C, in case 'ducking down' to a lower level is necessary, I feel that C++ is useful to know as a language with all the OO of, for instance, Smalltalk, and low level capabilities too. I've programmed in many languages and taught C++, and find that what is important for productivity is not higher-level *languages* so much as *environments* -- Smalltalk wouldn't be much fun without one.

In cases where one's reach exceeds one's grasp, as appears to be the case with all of these crypto ideas, bridging the semantic gap and actually getting something out is, I think, much more important than having it run faster (but not be built at all....).

Visual programming environments do greatly help in bridging this semantic gap. I don't think the argument against them (slow programs) is really valid, or will remain so for a long time. For most applications, including crypto, environments provide optimized libraries for a number of functions. Most environments, such as Visual C++, provide for links to lower levels, allowing optimization for *really* critical routines. How many people still program in assembly? I do sometimes, but more out of enjoyment than necessity ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab@dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------