Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!jk0
From: jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested
Message-ID: <1990Mar1.203718.11721@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 90 20:37:18 GMT
References: <34416@news.Think.COM>
Sender: jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin)
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Lines: 39

From article <34416@news.Think.COM>, by barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin):
> In article <1990Feb28.213543.21748@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) writes:
>>	Gee, if you read the language defn you'd know exactly when break
>>applies and when break doesn't.  It seems to me that it is the
>>programmer's responsibility to know the language in which he is going to
>>implement said project -- it's not necessarily the language's responsibility
>>to know the programmer didn't read the defn.
> 
> What would you say if a car designer used a similar excuse: Gee, if you'd
> read the owner's manual for the 6000SUX you'd know that you have to turn
> the radio off before stepping on the brake pedal.  It seems to me that it
> is the driver's responsibility to know the car he's driving -- it's not
> necessarily the manufacturer's responsibility to know that the driver
> didn't read the manual.
> 

	Oh come one -- cars != programming languages and your analogy is
useless...  People know how to work the radio and usually the semantics
of driving a ford as opposed to a chevy is pretty clear.  The
differences between C, Pasal, LISP, APL are more than syntactical *AND*
semantical.  This is why some people are good programmers and some
people write crap.  [Besides, who turns the radio off before stepping on
the brake pedal?????]

> Yes, it's the resposibility of the programmer to know the language.  But
> it's the responsibility of language designers to design languages
> reasonably.  If programmer-friendliness weren't an issue we'd still be
> programming in machine language.

	True, language designers should design languages reasonably. 
But, the language *IS* clear, and it's clearly defined in K & R and K&R
with the ANSI extensions.  The problem is that programmers have to be
aware of language design issues -- and they aren't.

-- 
Jason Coughlin ( jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu , jk0@clutx )
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the
part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of." - They Might Be Giants