Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cme!durer!rowe From: rowe@cme.nist.gov (Walter Rowe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Language wars (was Re: 48 forgeries) Message-ID: Date: 23 Mar 90 16:07:17 GMT References: <1990Mar19.015850.6433@alembic.acs.com> <1094@athen.sinix.UUCP> <16594@ethz-inf.UUCP> Sender: news@cme.nist.gov Followup-To: comp.lang.c Distribution: comp Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology Lines: 20 In-reply-to: wyle@inf.ethz.ch's message of 22 Mar 90 08:29:01 GMT >>>>> On 22 Mar 90 08:29:01 GMT, wyle@inf.ethz.ch (Mitchell Wyle) said: Mitchell> C is just too damn "hacky." I've seen too much code like Mitchell> **p->*n->t This IS pretty nasty. However, C doesn't have to be "hacky", nor does any other language. "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link", and a language is only as good as the programmer using it. If your (objective "you") solution to a problem is hard to understand without the language, then it will more than likely be even harder to understand (and implement) within the scope of the language you use. If the solution doesn't make sense in plain english, then it probably won't be very pretty in code either. Programming isn't just being able to think of an algorithm. It's also elegance in coding style and in logical organization of code. So many people seem to miss that last one. My first paragraph says it all! -wpr