Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!eos!aurora!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!ray
From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <956@micomvax.UUCP>
Date: 23 Mar 88 23:57:51 GMT
References: <11216@brl-adm.ARPA> <2111@chinet.UUCP> <4403@garfield.UUCP> <931@micomvax.UUCP> <1011@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn)
Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. (TDS - Montreal) St. Laurent P.Q., Canada
Lines: 76
Summary: Beating a dead mouse.

In article <1011@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse), 
obviously feeling cheesed off, squeaks:

>In article <931@micomvax.UUCP>, ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>> We believe that you should put a safety cage over a spinning gear,
>> not just put up a sign saying "Don't slip on the wet floor into this
>> dangerous device".
>
>Except that in this case, it is sometimes useful to slip into the
>spinning gear, provided you know what you're doing.  The cage gets in
>the way of that.

I agree, it is indeed sometimes useful.  Did I make any suggestion anywhere
that we remove this ability?  I suggest that the safety cage should be the
*norm*.  Give the guy a wrench if he wants to remove it!  Use you incisor
teeth on the bars (:-)!  But be careful of the cat!

>> Dave, don't you believe in removing from system designs, as much of
>> the human ability to make mistakes as possible?

>Fine.  Let's tie everyone to their bed, so they can't fall down
>crossing the street and get run over.

WOWEE!  Is it a bird?  Is it a plane?  No!  Its only *der mouse* taking an
incredible unsupported leap from one statement to a conclusion!

Can someone please explain the step from question ">>" to conclusion ">"?
Or is the tail too long?

>> Remember me the next time you discover a "stupid" error in the code
>> you are writing, or when a typo costs you a couple of days work,
>> [etc].
>
>And you remember this discussion next time you come up against
>something your current language won't let you do because its designers
>considered it a bad thing to do and hence forbade it.
>

Jeese!  You are missing the whole point!  Its not the freedom that's bad,
its the syntax that's bad!

We should all have the right to commit suicide, I would rather not do it
accidently (:-)!

You *should* be able to do *anything* in a language if you really must.

What you should also rely on the language to do is to help you not make
stupid mistakes.  I make stupid mistakes, you make stupid mistakes, we *all*
make stupid mistakes!

Stupid mistakes should be *obvious* they should not be *insidious*.

>Just yesterday I found a bug in some of my code where I'd written ==
>for what I intended to be an assignment.  So what?  I discover bugs
>where I've written && instead of ||, too.
>

So what indeed!  Clever little mouse aren't you!  At least the majority of
us only make stupid mistakes, making *clever* mistakes takes talent!

How many have you yet to find, and how many have already done their damage!

The cage not only saves *you*, it also saves your poor unsuspecting
*users* (or had you forgotten them)?

>It's a tradeoff.  C chooses freedom, and with it comes the rope to hang
>yourself.

Or others, as the case may be.

Does liking 'C' mean we shouldn't try to improve it?

This subject is f***ing demised!  It's pushing up the daisies!  It's a
*dead* subject.  It has ceased to 'C'.

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