Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!enea!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C's sins of commission
Message-ID: <2171@enea.se>
Date: 7 Oct 90 20:58:54 GMT
References: <64618@lanl.gov) <2883@igloo.scum.com)
Organization: Enea Data AB, Sweden
Lines: 20

Nevin Liber (nevin@igloo.UUCP) writes:
)Jim Giles (jlg@lanl.gov) writes:
))It is my contention that future languages
))shouldn't have pointers at all.  Not just no C-like pointers, none at
))all.  I just picked on C as the most unpleasant example of what I'm
))against.
)
)I really hate to agree with you Jim :-), but I'm beginning to think
)that you are right.  The only real argument I can see _for_ having
)pointers is efficiency; more specifically, to help in
)hand-optimisation.  Extensions to C such as C++ are showing that
)pointers aren't needed nearly as much as they use to be;

I must be missing some context here, else this doesn't make sense.
Of course pointers are a necessary thing. Then it's an issue whether
you make them explicit like in C, Ada or Pascal, or hide them a
little and call them references like in Eiffel.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
"Nelly Nilsson n|jer sig numera n{ppeligen med nio n|tter till natten"