Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!i.cc.purdue.edu!k.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: == vs = Summary: We cannot use a different compiler for each line of code Message-ID: <687@l.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 25 Feb 88 12:31:26 GMT References: <11216@brl-adm.ARPA> <2111@chinet.UUCP> <4403@garfield.UUCP> <2727@mmintl.UUCP> Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department Lines: 44 In article <2727@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > In article <7273@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: > >Why are you guys wasting so much effort on a non-problem? > >If you prefer Pascal, then use it! > > It isn't a non-problem, and we don't prefer Pascal. For every problem with > C, there is a problem 3 times as severe with Pascal. That is no reason not > to try to fix the problems with C. > -- > > Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka > Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 I agree completely. Those who say "FORTRAN can do this, so use FORTRAN" or the same for LISP, etc., are ignoring the problem. I am using C for _numerical_ programming because many of the things I want to use, such as pointers, are not available elsewhere. I believe that, at present, C is the only existing language which allows the programmer to reasonably efficiently use _some_ of the power of the machine; I cannot expect a language designer to be so omniscient that my needs can be anticipated. The intelligent programmer should be able to start with a problem and with the capabilities of the machine on which the problem is to be implemented and be able to implement the derived solution with reasonable ease. At present, C comes closest to doing this. Assembler allows good implementation, but has an unnecessarily complicated syntax, and is totally non-portable. I believe it is possible to achieve good semi-portable code, frequently with a choice of procedures for accomplishing the goal. Telling me that what I want to do in part of my code can be done in FORTRAN, another part in PASCAL, another part in ..., where each part is a small number of lines, is stupid. I do not know of any way to combine anything smaller than subroutines from different compilations, and C suffers from not allowing the user to suggest or even force inline code, which frequently is far faster than a subroutine call and may even take less space in the main program than the subroutine call and subsequent handling of the return. Do not restrict the programmer! -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet