Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!hub!6600pete
From: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Was Einstein wrong after all? (was: Re: ambiguous ?)
Message-ID: <2748@hub.UUCP>
Date: 27 Oct 89 19:19:13 GMT
References: <14116@lanl.gov> <182@isgtec.UUCP>
Sender: news@hub.UUCP
Reply-To: pete@cavevax.ucsb.edu
Organization: Underground BBS: rlogin 128.111.41.100 -l bbs
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: robert@isgtec.UUCP's message of 27 Oct 89 02:37:08 GMT

Sorry to post this as a follow-up to roughly the wrong person, but I
missed Giles' message the first time round and I couldn't resist.

In article <182@isgtec.UUCP> robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes:
> In article <14116@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>>Or is it
>>better to dissuade as many as possible from pusuing this 18 year old
>>dead-end of a programming language?

Giles said THIS? Isn't he the one who keeps espousing FORTRAN as the
better-designed language? If so, this comment is comedic at best. 18
years old? C is a BABY! Dead-end? Yeah, and Fortran's used exclusively
by all the up-and-coming hacks to write the new OS's and the new
windowing environments. C's had a wider distribution than Fortran in
half the time. Why call it a dead-end, then?
--
  | GurgleKat (Pete Gontier), pete@cavevax.ucsb.edu
  | .UUCP reply addresses bounce; try another path.
  | ...if you'd gone to Dartmouth, you'd not have had to take the math.