Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: `safe' putc (was avoiding stdio)
Message-ID: <1990Feb9.214044.26382@twwells.com>
Date: 9 Feb 90 21:40:44 GMT
References: <10883@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <21689@mimsy.umd.edu> <25929@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <22169@mimsy.umd.edu> <670@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 32

In article <670@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
: It's wonderful that this mistake is documented. It's still a mistake.

I have this little meter; it says "don't connect to over 10,000V"
on it.

"It's wonderful that this mistake is documented. It's still a mistake."

What horseshit!

Tools are designed for human purposes. Sometimes those purposes
conflict, or can't be simultaneously accomplished by a single
tool. (hah!) In that case, we make more than one tool and note the
limitations of each.

In the case of putc/fputc, there are two purposes: efficiency on
the one hand and all the benefits of a function on the other.

If you can't stand the limitations of the more efficient tool
DON'T USE IT.

But if you tell me not to, I'll just say (deep breath, expunge the
four letter words): you are not in any position to dictate to me
my choices for programming. *I* know what I'm doing and you are,
by your suggestion, making yourself look like an ignorant lout.

Now go away while I continue to use putc, safely, just like I
have for the past seven years.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com