Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!hybrid!robohack!woods
From: woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: C Community's Cavalier Attitude On Software Reliability
Summary: It's not C that's to blame!
Keywords: Unprofessional Irresponsible
Message-ID: <1990Feb27.044902.26170@robohack.UUCP>
Date: 27 Feb 90 04:49:02 GMT
References: <8147@hubcap.clemson.edu> <2910@goanna.oz.au>
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates:  Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 70

In article <2910@goanna.oz.au> ok@goanna.oz.au (Richard O'keefe) writes:
> I'm fond of saying "the more I like C, the better I like Ada",
> but I really couldn't let Bill Wolfe's message pass unchallenged.

I almost hit the `F'lame key too, but held off at least long enough to
read Richard's message.  I was particularly pissed off by the way Mr.
Wolfe cited the particlular set of "BUGS" excerpts without contextual
reference.

Just one quibble with the rebuttal:
> In article <8147@hubcap.clemson.edu>, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill Wolfe) writes:
> >    CTAGS(1)  ...if you have two Pascal procedures in different blocks
> >              with the same name, you lose.
> 
> [....]
> The fundamental problem is that 'ctags' is trying to do something which
> is not in principle doable, thanks to the existence of the preprocessor.

But again, nothing here relates directly to C.  Ctags could be written
in anything, even COBOL.  BTW, what does the preprocessor have to do
with "ctags" for Pascal?

As for Software Engineering:

> >  It appears that there is a real need to publicize software engineering 
> >  concepts throughout the C community, both directly through software
> >  engineering education [....]
> 
> I agree 100% with this, except that I'm not convinced that there IS a
> single "C community" whose act needs to be cleaned up.

I also agree 100%, except I would insist upon the replacement of "C
community" with "programming community".

> What we really want is a large number of low-cost (< US$300, say)
> Ada compilers scattered around enough so that people start contributing
> Ada sources to the net.  Then we'll get a chance to see how much of a
> difference the language makes.  In the mean time, we have to make do
> with what we've got.

I'd suggest it'll take a free and easily portable compiler of some
modern language, not just a low-cost one.

I doubt ADA is the best such language either.  I've been trying to
learn more about Modula-3, but getting a compiler has not proven
easy.  C++ is good, but it still gives you more rope than you need.  I
don't really like Eiffel, nor Objective-C.  Smalltalk-80 is still my
favorite language next to C.

I believe I learned the most about programming from lisp.  Perhaps
Scheme or lisp are the best teaching languages.  I have a friend who
swears APL is one of the best languages.

Until software engineering is taught with as much care and vigor as
medicine (or law?), and until we can judge only software created by
the resulting engineers, we will not be without examples such as those
cited by Mr. Wolfe.

C is certainly not to blame for the lack of quality and reliability.

Unix cannot be blamed either.  Unix may have fostered many poor
examples of quality and reliability (perhaps because of its early
introduction into the academic community).  However, I would say it
has also given birth to many more good examples than any other single
environment.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{robohack,gate,eci386,tmsoft,ontmoh}.UUCP
+1 416 443-1734 [h]   +1 416 595-5425 [w]   VE3-TCP   Toronto, Ontario; CANADA