Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!umd5!eneevax!noise
From: noise@eneevax.UUCP (Johnson Noise)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The D Programming Language (was: Still more new operators)
Summary: Here we go again
Message-ID: <1250@eneevax.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 88 01:09:36 GMT
References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> <2718@mmintl.UUCP> <6306@iuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: noise@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Johnson Noise)
Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 59

In article <6306@iuvax.UUCP> cdaf@iuvax.UUCP (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>In article <2718@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>>
>>Any serious effort to design a successor to C (which does not attempt to be
>>upward compatible) should first consider what should be taken out and/or
>>done differently.  Adding new things is secondary.
>>
>[lots of oh, so familiar changes which just don't look like C...]
>
>I think the language you want was already designed by Nicolas Wirth:  Pascal.
>
>
>-charles
>

	Yeah, I think so.  There are even those who want to change
= to :=.  Computer users (I stress users -- see below) seem to be the
biggest complainers of all "scientists".  Algol and PL/1 were designed
a long time ago, everyone thought that they would be THE programming
languages for all humanity/applications.  Now people think that ADA
and Modula 2 are THE programming languages.  Not many people stop to
look at history.  C was just something Ritchie came up with -- it
wasn't a _software_engineering_environment_, just a simple, portable,
utility.  It has probably become (along with UN*X) the second greatest
computer science accomplishment ever.  It was not due to some great
"design by commitee", just necessity.
	A guy I work with sometimes asks the question: "now that we
have all these great modular languages like ADA and Modula 2, I would
think there would be more software using them".  This has to do with
Mac stuff which is mostly written in C.  The answer is simple: computer
systems people (I stress systems people -- see below) are more interested
in getting the job done.  Let's face it, a compiler is just a tool.
It does not write code for you, it does not find algorithmic errors
for you, it is just a way to avoid assembly (this is the reason FORTRAN
is the first greatest computer science accomplishment).
	If you don't like C, don't use it.  There must be at least 100
different programming languages, none of which are radically different
from Algol, FORTRAN, or LISP.  All three of these were invented in the
late 50's-early 60's, so I think you can find what you are looking for
in some variant.
	C was designed as a systems implementation language, not THE
language for all humanity/applications.  I think it does a very, very
good job.  What most people are suggesting (with respect to D) is
another Algol, PL/1, ADA, Modula 2 and whatever else comes up in the
next five years.  It will suffer the same fate: crash and burn.


#define systems_person one who gets the job done

#ifdef systems_person
#define user !systems_person
#else
#define user one who waits for someone|something to do the job for him
#endif

I think Henry Spencer's quote says it all: "those who do not understand
UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly".

This is not meant as a flame, just my personal observations.