Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:2204 comp.lang.misc:5557
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!rpi!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!rutgers!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!igloo!nevin
From: nevin@igloo.scum.com (Nevin Liber)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C's sins of commission
Message-ID: <2883@igloo.scum.com>
Date: 4 Oct 90 06:02:45 GMT
References: <151675@felix.UUCP> <64618@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: nevin@igloo.UUCP (Nevin Liber)
Followup-To: comp.society.futures
Organization: Igloo public access unix, Northbrook IL
Lines: 22

[I added comp.lang.misc to the newsgroup list; please follow-up to the
appropriate newsgroup only.]

In article <64618@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) 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; heck, code
seems to be more readable w/o them.  In languages such as Icon and
LISP I find that I don't even miss them.
-- 
	NEVIN ":-)" LIBER
	nevin@igloo.Scum.com  or  ..!gargoyle!igloo!nevin
	(708) 831-FLYS
California, here I come!	Public Service Announcement: Say NO to Rugs!