<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Binding Software Patterns to Languages</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.codesqueeze.com/binding-software-patterns-to-languages/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.codesqueeze.com/binding-software-patterns-to-languages/</link>
	<description>Ideas for building efficient developers and software</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:03:44 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Max Pool</title>
		<link>http://www.codesqueeze.com/binding-software-patterns-to-languages/#comment-1549</link>
		<dc:creator>Max Pool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.codesqueeze.com/binding-software-patterns-to-languages/#comment-1549</guid>
		<description>@Adam - 

I guess the context was not the ability to solve a problem, but instead the elegant ways which you can solve it.

Creating a solution to find leaf nodes on a tree will be significantly less elegant in a procedural language that does not support recursion (for example).

All languages have their strengths and weaknesses, and depending on the context of the problem each can represent the solution in very different levels of elegance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Adam &#8211; </p>
<p>I guess the context was not the ability to solve a problem, but instead the elegant ways which you can solve it.</p>
<p>Creating a solution to find leaf nodes on a tree will be significantly less elegant in a procedural language that does not support recursion (for example).</p>
<p>All languages have their strengths and weaknesses, and depending on the context of the problem each can represent the solution in very different levels of elegance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Cox</title>
		<link>http://www.codesqueeze.com/binding-software-patterns-to-languages/#comment-1548</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.codesqueeze.com/binding-software-patterns-to-languages/#comment-1548</guid>
		<description>I disagree. If you look at some ideas behind the theory of computation, programming languages solve the same class of problems. There is typically not an algorithm that could be implemented in one language, but another. C could be compiled into Java and Java could be compiled into C.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree. If you look at some ideas behind the theory of computation, programming languages solve the same class of problems. There is typically not an algorithm that could be implemented in one language, but another. C could be compiled into Java and Java could be compiled into C.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

