Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:8181 alt.flame:1794
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pacbell!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!cmcl2!phri!manhat!mancol!step!philabs!micomvax!ray
From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.flame
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <938@micomvax.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 88 15:25:05 GMT
References: <11523@brl-adm.ARPA> <909@micomvax.UUCP> <191@ateng.UUCP>
Reply-To: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. (TDS - Montreal) St. Laurent P.Q., Canada
Lines: 50
Posted: Mon Mar 14 10:25:05 1988

In article <191@ateng.UUCP> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
 [ In response to a continuing discussion by myself and others on the
   = vs == question ]

>Enough, already!  Before continuing to flame pointlessly about the design
>of a well-established language like C in an attempt to make it "safe",

Since when was discussing the technical aspects of a language design flaming?

Who has decided it is pointless?  Only those who disagee that there is a
problem?

Well-established?  I thought the whole point of the current debates was that
the language was just about to be poured into the ANSI jello mold, but the
flavour nuances had not yet quite been chosen.

>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

Very profound!  Very irrelevant, but very profound!   (:-)

>And while you're at it, try this (inexact) quote from Peter Norton
[obviously a major sage of the software industry (:-)]:
>	"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'."

What is being implied here?  That no attempt should be made to improve those
parts of the langauge which are error prone?  Should we not improve the
quality of our hard hats just because we are in an "industrial environment".

>Or novice programmers, for that matter.

Ah!  Now I see.  We all have to pass a "Salzenberg Test" to be allowed to
program in 'C'.

Yes, after 23 years in the profession I undoubtably still am a novice in
many ways (just think, I've never programmed in COBOL!), however I think I
probably could pass *that* test.

I have moved Followups to alt.flame, as this posting is no longer discussing
the technical aspects!  Please continue to post technical points on this
subject to comp.lang.c by editing the Followup-To line.


Ray Dunn.   ..{philabs, mnetor, musocs}!micomvax!ray