>>16
Contrary to what the python, ruby, perl people want you to believe, it doesn't take that much time to code the same thing in C, especially if you are looking for performance.
OMG OPTIMIZED. Now code [(x, y) for x in xrange(10) for y in (3, 4, 5, 10) if x < y] in C. It should return a mutable, dynamic, heterogeneous linked list of tuples (immutable, dynamic, heterogeneous and linked). I wrote my crap as fast as I could, because I just expressed what I wanted to get. Can you do that in your OMG OPTIMIZED language? BTW, if my crap runs slow, I can buy a better computer for it with the money I make in the time I save.
That said people who claim it takes longer to code it in C are ignoring the fact that they don't know C well enough to confidently code it in C.
Not true. I've been using C for years and have a very good knowledge of it. I once tried to abstract and do all the shit I'm doing right now. Until I got tired of writing
and debugging 20 lines that do what I could have done with a single obvious line in a better language.
OCaml is a good functional contender against C, although if you code in a functional style it usually won't be as fast as the imperative styles.
Again, but man,
WHO GIVES A FUCK IT'S SLOWER!? It's much faster, cheaper an development, which is what matters. If you don't like the execution speed buy better hardware. You can't be that poor.
>>19
I never said that:
1. Ruby was fast
2. Ruby was good (it's certainly better than C, but I hate its Perlish syntax)
3. Functional programming is simple
I said that functional programming is far more effective, cheap and fulfilling, and helps getting things done in the end. I also said only teenagers who just discovered C and produce the buggiest, worse algorithms that execute at the fastest speed care about OMG OPTIMIZATION and CFLAGS (wait, it's USE flags where it's at!).