Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <11369@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 21 Oct 89 22:32:39 GMT
References: <1989Oct20.175352.20598@utzoo.uucp> <14102@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 22

In article <14102@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>If it involves compromises of correctness, the language is not worth
>pursuing.  If it involves _unnecesasary_ compromises of efficiency,
>the language is in need of modification.  C requires one or the other
>compromise.

Hey, Giles, you've already made the point that you don't like C --
many times over!  You're not serving any useful purpose by intruding
your complaints about it into this newsgroup.  Everyone you're arguing
with KNOWS FULL WELL the characteristics of C that you object to.  We
disagree that it makes the language unusable.  We would probably all
agree that these characteristics can make C dangerous in unskilled
hands, too.  C is like a power tool in that regard.

In fact, C offers better support for correct, efficient, portable
programming, particularly of intricate applications, than any other
common programming language, including your beloved Fortran.  Many
commercial software programmers have also come to this conclusion.
You should of course draw your own conclusions, even if they're
based on faulty evidence or reasoning, but there is no need to rant
about C in this newgroup.  Do that in some comparative programming
languages newsgroup instead.