On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 12/13/06 08:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote: > >>>> Ron Johnson wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turbo Pascal's > >>>>> problems were it's small memory model and lack of modules until > >>>>> v4.0, by which time C had already taken over. > >>>> Who said anything about MSDOS? C took over when CP/M was the rage. > >>>> "Modules" are just what I mentioned with respect to "separate > >>>> compilation". > >>>> > >>>> The issue with Pascal is that it is completely unsuited to > >>>> systems programming altogether, because it has no escape > >>>> route from the strong typing, no provision for separate > >>>> compilation, and uses interpreted p-code. > > I'm not a systems programmer, I'm a DP programmer. Thus, I don't > > give a Rat's Arse whether my language of choice is good for system > > programming. In fact, I *like* B&D languages. Why? Not needing to > >> ^^^ > >> Bondage and domination? Sounds like what I call police-state languages > > s/domination/discipline > http://catb.org/jargon//html/B/bondage-and-discipline-language.html > > > worry about pointers and heaps and array under/overflows trampling > > over core means that my jobs die less often, which is A Good Thing. > > > >> I like pointers and heaps and arrays. They really make it possible to > >> organise my data in usable form. > > All depends on your problem domain. :) > > > I hate the way C makes it pretty well > >> imposible to use these without desperate debugging nights. > > Amen. > > >> That's why I like p[olice-state languages that make these features > >> available in a secure and efficient way. Yes, these languages do exist. > >> In my opinion, the majority of the code in Debian could have been > >> written more easlily, and more reliably, in one of these languages. > > We agree here, I think. C is *way* overused in non-system development.
I think it's overused in system development, too. ONly relatively small parts of systems need to break the rules of conventional strongly typed programming. And a decent systems language lets you do that when you need to, but not by accident. I think I'm repeating myself. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
