Path: utzoo!attcan!cmtl01!matrox!uvm-gen!uunet!lll-winken!ames!haven!purdue!rjh
From: rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: What is B&D? (Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages)
Message-ID: <5903@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 26 Jan 89 02:26:20 GMT
References: <4265@enea.se> <10011@diamond.csl.sony.JUNET>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Reply-To: rjh@cs.purdue.edu (Bob Hathaway)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 23

Erland Sommarstog writes:
>>If we could trust programmers there would be no need for language
>>of any higher level than C.

David Gudeman writes:
>If you don't think there is any substantive difference between C and
>Modula-2, why do you use Modula-2?  Why not use a language which has
>much broader distribution and is much better known?  Tell me why you
>think Modula-2 is good, and you will be describing what I don't like
>about it.

A last point from me on this discussion concerns a few software engineering
issues: code can be used for purposes other than intended, programmers can
leave, prototypes can evolve, programs can grow very large, etc.  Well
designed programs will survive gracefully, poorly designed ones won't.
Since the design of good programs can be reflected in code, I prefer
languages which provide the best facilities to model these abstractions
such as Ada, Modula, etc.  Since these languages provide adequate escape
mechanisms for use when necessary, I find them suitable for general
purpose programming.

                                           Bob Hathaway
                                           rjh@purdue.edu