Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!ufcsv!gatech!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!hen
From: hen@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Bill Henneman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Language-induced errors
Message-ID: <18515@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 88 13:51:08 GMT
References: <4668@pyr.gatech.EDU> <495@xyzzy.UUCP> <9930@mimsy.UUCP> <10027@ut-sally.UUCP> <609@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Reply-To: hen@bucsd.bu.edu (Wm. H. Henneman)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Boston Univ. CS Dept.
Lines: 24

In article <609@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, edw@IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU (Eddie Wyatt) writes
>   Sorry, but in my opinion the similiarity between "==" and "=" is a
>flaw in the language.  My attitude towards programming enviroments (languages
>comprise part that) is that one aspect the enviroment should provide is
>assisting programmers in developing software by insolating them against
>common errors they make.  "=" in place of "==" is a very common bug I've seen
>made by C programmers.  Claiming that its the programmer at fault won't,
>help you when your software clashes causing major damage  (as in a Venus probe
>that had a bug in the software to the degree: for i=1.100 in Fortran ).  
>"An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Are there programmers who really have trouble with this?  I know a
fair number of C programmers (i.e., people who are paid to produce
code), and none of us find these kinds of things to be sources of
error.  Those of us with the most experience with other languages took
the longest for that to stop being a source of error - about half a
day.  By the time we had run the exercises in Chapter 3 of K&R, this
sort of error was about as likely as my saying *DO* or *LOOP* when I
mean *FOR*.

Is my experience unique?  Is there something in the air in Boston that
makes us immune to this sort of error?

			Skeptical in Kenmore Square