Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: C's sins of commission (was: (pssst...fortran?))
Message-ID: <6519.tnews@templar.actrix.co.nz>
Date: 4 Oct 90 22:51:21 GMT
Followup-To: comp.society.futures
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG.
Lines: 21

Quoted from - jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles):
> On the contrary, in a discussion about future language design, this is
> a quite appropriate topic.  It is my contention that future languages
> shouldn't have pointers at all.  Not just no C-like pointers, none at

    Perhaps future languages should control pointers in new and more
    fascinating ways, rather than do away with them altogether. This seems
    similar to the argument about goto, except with less basis in reality,
    and goto is still with us.

    Look for ways to improve on what seems to be deficient, rather than
    ban it altogether. Since the usefulness of pointers seems to be a
    matter of judgement (I intensely dislike the ideas of Pascal or BASIC
    string constructs), it'd probably be more useful to look at improving
    "lint"s, having seperate languages for seperate applications, and so
    on.

> J. Giles
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.         jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz ***
***          "All I can do now is wait for the noise." - Numan          ***