Re: Declarative constraints in practical terms

x wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141225670.722143.166220_at_v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > But if there is a significant difference in
> > quality and cost and if declarative languages can be general purpose
> > languages, then why are so many people still coding with "imperative"
> > languages? I think there must be good reasons. What are the problems
> > of using declarative languages?
>
> But if there is a significant difference in
> quality and cost and if high level languages can be general purpose
> languages, then why are so many people still coding with assembler languages
> ?

No one I know writes business data processing software applications using assembler today. But I'll set myself back into the 70's and perhaps you are telling me that this is a matter of people clinging to what they know. While I'll grant that is possibly the situation, I don't see declarative languages as being so new. Unlike high level languages, I see no big group of developers (in my areas) heading in that direction other than with SQL, which is not a general purpose language. There is a lot more metadata, which is a type of declaration, but it is handled within imperative languages.

> I think there must be good reasons. What are the problems
> of using high level languages?

Not quite the same thing, I would say. Most of the assembler programmers sitting among the high level language programmers in the 70's knew they were clinging to the old. The industry was clearly moving in the direction of higher level languages. I see no such movement (yet?) Cheers! --dawn Received on Wed Mar 01 2006 - 16:54:57 CET