| |||||||||||
languages vs librarieslanguages vs librariesPosted Jun 24, 2004 14:49 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029)In reply to: languages vs libraries by davidw Parent article: The New Age of Programming
A flexible programming language will adapt to new situations and needs via libraries. Amen, brother. I do most of my heavy-lifting programming in C++, since that's what I used primarily as a grad student cutting my teeth on sizeable chunks of code. Consequently, I've built up a set of libraries to handle such things as networking, setting up distributed systems, automatic ASN.1 serialization, and event-based concurrency. Could these have been included in the language? Sure. I could use Java and remove the networking and serialization libraries at least. The fact is, however, that I don't have to. The packages only have to be written once, and let's not kid ourselves that Java's networking interface is a logical consequence of the language design—it's a package that just happens to be included in the distribution and defined as part of the "standard".
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||