Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!enea!dkuug!iesd!amanda
From: amanda@iesd.uucp (Per Abrahamsen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Call by string (was: B&D)
Message-ID: <1260@iesd.uucp>
Date: 30 Jan 89 18:29:55 GMT
References: <4279@enea.se>
Reply-To: amanda@iesd.dk (Per Abrahamsen)
Organization: Games Research, University of Aalborg, Denmark
Lines: 15

In article <4279@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>  Then on the other hand, there are of course things that are simpler
>to carry out in C. So that's the point: what's is B&D depends on what 
>you want to do. Or in clear text: This talk of B&D is just rubbish.

Who said a language was "B&D" when it made something difficult to do?

The claim was that a language was B&D when the designer intentionally
made something difficult, in order to protect the programmer from
himself. C and Modula 2 don't have a "call string" because it would be
difficult and inefficient to implement in these languages, not because
Richie & Wirth thought it was wrong. 

-- 
Per Abrahamsen,  amanda@iesd.dk, {...}!mcvax!diku!iesd!amanda