Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: a style question Message-ID: <1990Oct6.231143.28186@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <65019@lanl.gov> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 23:11:43 GMT In article <65019@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >... The C language is so full of pitfalls that it usually takes >as long to get a working version of _any_ algorithm written in C as it >does to write it in assembly. Only for people who think in Fortran. In case you didn't notice, Jim, portability was a fortuitous afterthought in C. Its original motive was easier programming than assembler. It succeeded at that; it wiped out assembler within Unix not due to concerns about portability -- that was still far in the future -- but simply because it was easier to work with. This is with experienced programmers, mind you; it is not an easy language for novices (even those with plenty of experience programming in other languages). Your claims are contrary to observed fact. C succeeded by being superior, not by being portable or by official decree; in many shops it had an uphill battle to displace languages which were supposedly more efficient, more portable, or more standard. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry