Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcupt1!jamiller
From: jamiller@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Jim Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: setjmp() (was Re: Relationship between C and C++)
Message-ID: <6000006@hpcupt1.HP.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 90 21:10:10 GMT
References: <1990Mar22.162737.9371@craycos.com>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 51

>Which is a quite reasonable argument. Pointer-safe languages generally
>require garbage-collected heaps, which means size. So I can see that
>a language like C which is required to run on Machines With Tiny
>Brains will not be "safe" in that respect.
>
>But, this leaves two issues open: (i) why C has such an idiotic
>syntax, arbitrary type-checking, lax compile-time checks and so on,
>and (ii) why people think that C's features provide "power" in
>general-purpose programming. Point (i) is an accident of history.
>Point (ii) still intrigues me.
>
>		Nick.

IMHO, IMHO, IMHO, . . .

("~>" means "approximately said")

~>(i) why C has such:
~>   1) idiotic syntax
in general, I don't think it does (IMHO).  If you are regarding
the crypticness, then I think it is less cryptic than APL, and
a whole lot more useful than most of the alternatives.  I really love
"+=" and "++".  Some "problems" (my favorites are "==" and switch's "break"),
but in the whole I'm a C lover (but don't tell by wife, pardon, significant
other).

~>   2) arbitrary type-checking
Ok, Ok, I think that lint should to a better job.  Especially with
typedefs.

~>   3) lax compile-time checks
I define the compiler as "cc" + "lint".  If you want checks, use lint, if
you want code, use cc.  Among other things, this makes cc FAST.  It
is not unusual for all the code on a machine to be re-make'd overnight
when a new version of the OS comes out (at least we had to do it
sometimes with BSD).  With most languages it might have been a week long
effort.  I know of customers which *will not* recompile, due to the
impact on the time their operation -- one just better find a better way.
They are not using C.

~>   4) and so on.
~>(ii) why people think that C's features provide "power"
IMHO,  C is not a high level language, but a powerful, & semi portable,
assembler.  With C one can usually get more direct access to OS and
machine features than are available with most alternates.
Speed freaks like having a good understanding of the code that
is emitted, and C seems to fit the bill better than many other languages,
though this statement could easily start a religious war (nix nix IMHO IMHO)


    jim - i'm not even sure these are my opinions - miller