Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!noao!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Modern langauges
Message-ID: <3348@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 2 Jan 88 01:00:02 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 66

In article  <2570@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>To appreciate a modern langauge you must be a modern programmer...

I have been following the discussion in question, and this is a
completely unjustified slur.  Douglas Pase never said that very high
level languages are unnecessary, he only said that intermediate-level
languages like C are also necessary.

>... point-counter-point about security in compilers ...

>Even more tedious is the work to find the bug caused by such a mistake, 
>which ought to be caught by the compiler or a run-time check. As for
>reading, I think the explicit type conversions help understanding what's
>happening.

You are entiled to your opinion about what makes things readable, I
tend to agree, but there are a lot of people who disagree.  As to
compile-time checking, you can always use lint if you want extra
security.  One advantage of C is that it allows programmers to choose
a style they find comfortable.  Pascal, Ada, et. al. try to put the
programmer into a straight-jacket.  This is fine for companies who
want to restrict their programmers in this manner, but when I choose
my _own_ language, for my _own_ purposes, I'm picking one that lets me
do what I want.  (Probably Lisp or Icon :-)

>... discussion of array bounds checking and its inefficiency ...

>This, I'd say, is an really old-fashioned argument. In these days
>when hardware is cheaper than software, buy faster software, don't
>remove the array checks....

Now _that's_ an old argument.  You've already convinced us that the
only reason to use C is for efficiency.  If I'm programming an
application that is so cramped for resources that I'm willing to
resort to C, I certainly don't want it wasting time checking array
bounds.

>>... C takes a liberal view of the world.  It assumes (sometimes
>>rashly) that the programmer knows what s/he is doing....
>
>And this is just so wrong, wrong, wrong! We have lived with computers so
>long that we know that programmers very often only are just dimly aware
>of what they are doing. Or do you really believe in bug-free software?

Did you see the parenthetical remark?  The writter of this sentence is
fully aware of the dangers of C.  But there are times when efficiency
is so important that the dangers are necessary.  You are blindly
parroting arguments that we have all heard a thousand times (I have
made the same arguments myself).  But the argument that "efficiency is
seldom important" is irrelevant, since Mr. Pase is arguing that C is a
good language in those cases where efficiency _is_ important.

>>I agree, C is a low level language, at least in the sense that it
>>gives you a programming model which is still very close to the
>>machine.  It was intended to be that way.  It will never replace
>>higher level languages.  It was not intended to....
>
>Yes, but here is the big big big problem. There are many many people
>who belives it does. If C only where used instead for assembler in
>low-level applications, I wouldn't mind...

Then you were pretending Mr. Pase is a bad guy for rhetorical effect.
I don't think rhetorical effect is an excuse for rudeness.  In case
anyone is wondering, I have never met Douglas Pase, I just get tired
of hearing the same language debates over and over, often misdirected,
intolerant, and rude.