Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!BRL.ARPA!gwyn
From: gwyn@BRL.ARPA (Doug Gwyn, VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re:  Reply.
Message-ID: <8705221726.aa07174@VGR.BRL.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 22-May-87 17:26:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: VGR.8705221726.aa07174
Posted: Fri May 22 17:26:58 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 19:01:16 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 37

C (typed) pointers are not a "dirty trick" but are fundamental for the
programming applications that C was intended for.  One most certainly
can assign structures (not "records") in C, use them as parameters,
etc.  It is true that C arrays are second-class objects, and that if
compatibility with mountains of existing code weren't an issue one
should fix that.  My comments about strcpy() were to counter the claim
you made that the arguments were in a counter-intuitive order, not that
function calls are necessarily superior to direct language support for
a facility.  (Although they might be; it depends.)

There have been many "simple, clear" languages, including Algol 68,
Lisp, TRAC, Bliss, and FP.  Most of these have not been highly
successful in the world of the programming practitioner, not because of
technical problems but because of the many other things that determine
the usability of a programming language.

Even the most ardent defenders of language "elegance" botch their use
of their preferred techniques; there were at least three genuine bugs
in Dijkstra's "A Discipline of Programming" (wherein he was bragging
how he didn't have to run the programs on a computer to know that they
were bug-free).  Recently in Bentley's "Programming Pearls" in CACM,
Don Knuth presented what was supposed to be a textbook example of his
"literate programming" using WEB, and Doug McIlroy had little trouble
tearing it to shreds.

Even the most inhospitable languages can be used with clarity and style,
although certainly some make this easier than others.  I have found it
fairly easy to use C in a reliable manner, but then I spend more time
practicing than complaining.  If you need to learn how to do this, I
would recommend Tom Plum's books.

If C is so terrible, then how do you explain so many commercial software
developers switching to it?  Why aren't they using Turing, if it's really
so much better than C?  I think an honest investigation would show that C
is "good enough" technically for most applications and has other
significant advantages (such as widespread availability) that make it a
better actual choice in most situations.