>> True, but again, *you shouldn't have to*. It means programmer >> effort, brain power, is being wasted on thinking about being safe >> instead of spent on writing better programs.
True, but... > One side effect of this is that it makes a lot of C programmers > pedants. ...this is also true, and it means the development of a mindset that's better equipped to catch higher-level mistakes as well as the low-level mistakes. It's true that C is easy to use unsafely. However, (a) it arose as an OS implementation language, for which some level of unsafeness is necessary, and (b) to paraphrase a famous remark about Unix, I suspect it is not possible to eliminate the ability to do stupid things in C without also eliminating the ability to do some clever things in C. Of course, the question is not whether C has flaws. The question is why it's still being used despite those flaws. The answer, I suspect, is what someone said about it being good enough. > My value system doesn't jive with smart phones. I would have no problem with them if they were documented. But I've yet to find one that is. I worked on a project writing code for a new Android phone, once, and even as developers we had to use binary blob drivers for important pieces. (It also taught me how horrible the Android build system is.) Mind you, if/when I find one that _is_ documented.... /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
