Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Excerpts from "The C Programming Language" (Re: C bashing)
Message-ID: <1749@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 29 May 90 05:26:31 GMT
References: <2426@psuhcx.psu.edu> <233@mcosm.uucp> <7937@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <791@sagpd1.UUCP>
Reply-To: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 27

In article <791@sagpd1.UUCP> jharkins@sagpd1.UUCP (Jim Harkins) writes:

>Why do these ADA/C/Pascal flame wars always crop up here?

They don't always.  They pop up in other groups too.

>Do we go into the ADA group and flame their language?

If "we" means you and me, the answer is no.  If "we" means net users,
the answer is yes.

>I don't, I don't even subscribe to the damn thing.

No wonder you're asking stupid questions.  (Based on false premises,
as in "have you stopped beating your wife"...)

>Why don't they stay where they belong and leave us real programmers alone?

Some of us real programmers would be glad to see a new language which
contains only new design flaws, instead of copying old design flaws.
It means we need to know what the old design flaws are.
(The LENGTHS of these arguments, and the religious issues of whether
the flaws are desirable or not, are indeed pains.)

-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC     diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com
Proposed group comp.networks.load-reduction:  send your "yes" vote to /dev/null.