Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> At 03:22 PM 7/20/97 +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > For example I cannot see any "true" functional language in
> >your list (such as ML or CAML) nor any portable interpreted languages
> >(let along shells) such as Python that are very useful to develop
> >small prototypes in a very short time (for example to test a brand new
> >algorithm against gross errors or to estimate the mean complexity of
> >an algorithm).
>      I don't want to get into the debate about which Lisp dialects are
> "true" functional languages, but yes, I was trying to keep the list to
> those languages which are sufficently dominant in a particular area.  For
> instance, I almost added Prolog, but figured it didn't quite make the cut.
> And, yes, a good software engineer has probably used a dozen scripting
> langauges and twice as many assemblers.  But can someone who has never
> written a significant program in assembler--or even machine
> language--qualify as a good software engineer?

Sure.  I don't think one has to dig a ditch by hand to be a civil
engineer nor drive a hot rivet with a hand sledge to qualify as a
structural engineer.  Requiring one to have used early, primitive
software implementation tools in order to be a software engineer would
be just as ludicrous as the above examples, IMO.