Xref: utzoo comp.lang.modula2:1251 comp.lang.c:15932
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C is not superfluous (Re: "for" loops (was Re: C++ vs. Modula2))
Message-ID: <365@twwells.uucp>
Date: 1 Feb 89 18:19:16 GMT
References: <348@twwells.uucp> <1315@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 29
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <1315@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
: From article <348@twwells.uucp>, by bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells):
: > In article <1626@csuna.UUCP> abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes:
:
: > : ... a C "for" loop is superfluous
: > : because it can be replaced by an equivalent "while" loop, NOT an
: > : equivalent "do ... while" loop:
: >
: > C is superfluous because it can be replaced by an equivalent assembly
: > program.
: >
:
: Nice try, but this reductio ad absurdum doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

: ...

: Indeed, many C-compilers translate to assembly language, but -- and
: this is important -- not always the same one.  Thus C is a mechanism for
: machine-independence. The "reductio" by analogy to replacing
: C-code with an "equivalent" assembly language program just doesn't hold up.

Oh, I agree. But my point was just that the argument: "The for loop
is superfluous because..." is just as relevant to the importance of
the for loop as my "C is superfluous because..." is relevant to the
importance of C. Which is to say, not at all.

---
Bill
{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!bill