Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!sam From: sam@csri.toronto.edu (Samuel Weber) Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages Message-ID: <8901180542.AA20739@yorkville.csri.toronto.edu> Organization: University of Toronto, CSRI References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net> <13293@cup.portal.com> <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1226@indetech.uucp> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 00:42:46 EST In article eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >In article <1226@indetech.uucp>, david@emerald.UUCP (David Kuder) writes: >> Speaking of *obvious* examples, what isn't a B&D language? > >C. C++. Lisp. Basic. Fortran. Any assembler. What!!! I am willing to admit that Lisp might not be B&D, but C and C++ are unquestionably one of the worst bondage and disipline languages around! Both of these languages force one to adhere to an artificial program/data distinction, as if there was some carved-in-stone declaration of which bytes happened to be code, and which data. If I want to write self-modifying code, and the language prevents me because the designer thought that self-modifying code was a 'bad thing', one can hardly state that the language is not totalitarian! What is especially irritating is that even though many people, such as the designers of Lisp, approved of self-modifying code, the designers of C and C++ decided to single-handedly legislate it out of existance. Conclusion: If you are going to disapprove of "B&D" languages, you should realize that you are also arguing against C and C++. -- --Sam Weber "Little Birds are bathing sam@csri.toronto.edu Crocodiles in cream, Like a happy dream: Like, but not so lasting-- (quote by Crocodiles, when fasting, Lewis Carroll) Are not all they seem!"