Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!codas!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <191@ateng.UUCP>
Date: 25 Feb 88 17:24:34 GMT
References: <11523@brl-adm.ARPA> <909@micomvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 30

In article <909@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>In article <11523@brl-adm.ARPA> dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) writes:
>>Does it make sense to change the language because some people have a
>>problem making the abstract <=> real transformation?
>
>Yes.  Otherwise it will eventually be the cause of someone's death, and that
>death is avoidable!


Enough, already!  Before continuing to flame pointlessly about the design
of a well-established language like C in an attempt to make it "safe",
please commit this quote to memory:

       "There never has been, nor will there ever be, any programming
	language in which it is the least bit difficult to write
	bad code."
				-- Lawrence Flon

And while you're at it, try this (inexact) quote from Peter Norton:

	"C is an industrial-strength language.  What some people seem
	to forget is that `industrial-strength' also means `not safe
	for pets or small children'."

Or novice programmers, for that matter.

-- 
Chip Salzenberg                 UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip"
A T Engineering                 My employer's opinions are a trade secret.
       "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."