Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!plogan
From: plogan@mentor.com (Patrick Logan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Relationship between C and C++
Message-ID: <1990Mar20.204710.6828@mentor.com>
Date: 20 Mar 90 20:47:10 GMT
References: <8432@hubcap.clemson.edu> <5200048@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <2605a117.396e@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: engr
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU's message of 20 Mar 90 03:18:47 GMT

In article <2605a117.396e@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes:
   I really think that those who are opposed to C, pointers, and all that
   goes with it, are more motivated by a desire to have programming done
   by grunt laborers in a DP shop environment, and have better productivity
   than has been had in the past with Cobol and Basic.  Those who like
   C are more of the craftsman type that like to produce finely wrought
   masterpieces.

You're wrong in at least one instance. My opposition is motivated by a
desire to have programming done by craftsfolk who like to produce
without the hindrance of managing pointers or the storage space they
point to. Let the system manage that level, tempered by a healthy
respect for the capabilities of the system (i.e. don't abuse the
system!).

Of course, yes, of course, for now this is not always possible. But I
would guess that most applications can perform very well in a language
system that manages pointers and storage allocation. That leaves more
time to improve the application itself.

-- 
Patrick Logan  uunet!mntgfx!plogan | 
Mentor Graphics Corporation        | 
Beaverton, Oregon 97005-7191   	   |