Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!hydra!hylka!pirinen
From: pirinen@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: C's sins of commission (was: (pssst...fortran?))
Summary: Only novices need safety?
Keywords: C, safety, pointer
Message-ID: <3114.26f57247@cc.helsinki.fi>
Date: 18 Sep 90 01:03:02 GMT
References: <1990Sep14.160429.2732@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> <9009141908.AA24760@world.std.com> <1990Sep14.212806.8131@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 26

In article <1990Sep14.212806.8131@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:
> I guess the point I was trying to make was
> that pointers are NOT difficult to understand AND they provide
> much needed flexibility...If a programmer does not understand them,
> most languages provide useful alternatives for them to use...
Except C, Pascal, etc.
> but don't take them away from people who understand and can use them
> effectively...
I agree pointers can be used effectively. It would be interesting to
program in a language that had pointers AND a useful alternative, to see
how often one would choose each.  Are there any such languages?

> Programming languages SHOULD NOT be restricted to provide
> safety for novice/non-programmers at the expense of those that can
> benefit from the flexibility of "dangerous" attributes such as pointers...
Where does this idea of C-hackers come from, that only novices need
safety?  I'm no novice (10 years of programming), and I want all the
safety I can get.  I'm sick and tired of debugging for hours to find
simple errors that could have been caught at the expense of a few
seconds of the compiler's time.  Programmers are not machines, even good
programmers make simple mistakes.


Pekka P. Pirinen   University of Helsinki
pirinen@cc.helsinki.fi  pirinen@finuh.bitnet  ..!mcvax!cc.helsinki.fi!pirinen
Read my Lisp: no new syntax! -nil