Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!amethyst!raw
From: raw@math.arizona.edu (Rich Walters)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested
Message-ID: <1527@amethyst.math.arizona.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 90 08:59:59 GMT
References: <159@uninet.vbo.dec.com>
Sender: news@amethyst.math.arizona.edu
Organization: Dept. of Math., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721
Lines: 35

In article <159@uninet.vbo.dec.com> vanavermaet@kerber.dec.com writes:
>
>with standard_disclaimer; use standard_disclaimer;
>
>In article <1819@awdprime.UUCP>, jaws@chibacity.austin.ibm.com writes...
>>This kind flexiability is what makes C so powerfull, and dangerous. 
>>You have know what you are doing to do it.
>
>I think this is a very sensible remark.
>
>O.K., the semantics are well-defined (as may people have pointed out),
>but it still IS dangerous. That (IMHO) is a very important factor (and to me, 
>a reason not to use C).
>
>Peter Van Avermaet


Do you refuse to drive a car because an irresponsible person could drive one
through a crowded play ground?

Do you refuse to own a gun because someone could use a (not necessarily your)
gun to kill someone else?

Do you refuse to own a (any) knife because someone could use a knife to injure/
kill someone else?

Yes C can be dangerous.  But many useful things can be or are dangerous.  That
is why users(programmers) need to be trained in its correct use, just as
drivers need to be trained in the correct use of an automobile.  To continue
the analogy, if the rules of the road aren't obeyed, chaos and destruction
reign.



			Richard Walter