I'm not blaming/bashing any language. However, as one other on this list
here has said, 'reading "C for dummies" on the loo and then thinking you can
write enterprise code' has become a frighteningly prominent trend. It seems
to be going this way with SQL and SQR progrmmers also these days. Replacing
good coding with brute horsepower seems to be the thing to do, because
nobody wants to pay for good code, just working code (then once it works,
throw resources at it till it's fast enough).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian King [mailto:iking@killthewabbit.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:02 PM
> To: Julian Wolfe
> Cc: info-pdp11@village.org
> Subject: RE: PDP-11 Browser?
>
> Hm, that's funny: I'm definitely not conformist, nor am I
> sloppy, and I don't feel underpaid. And I've done realtime systems.
>
> No matter what the human language, you can write sonnets or
> limericks; no matter what the computer language, you can
> write tight, secure code or sloppy, buggy code. Blaming the
> language is simply silly.
>
> C has a lot of flexibility, which translates into a lot of
> power for good or for evil. Some other languages constrain
> the programmer, in the name of "safety", but just like a
> bicycle with training wheels, there's something you give up.
>
> 'Unsafe' doesn't equate with 'bad' - I have some great power
> tools that are incredibly unsafe if used incorrectly. (I
> have forbidden my wife from even touching my reciprocating
> end-cut saw - you can take a leg off with that monster.) C
> isn't a friendly, 'safe' language, and in some ways it's
> weird many educational institutions still use it for
> introductory programming classes; but it's universal, and for
> the most part it expresses procedural programming semantics
> very clearly and directly.
>
> One thing I really like about C, as mentioned by others on
> this thread, is that if I need to knock off a quick-and-dirty
> program to accomplish a task, C doesn't add a lot of overhead
> and 'training wheels' (I hate Java for that reason). If I
> find that the program I've written is really useful and I
> want to reuse it or share it, I rewrite it, with attention to
> robustness and security and the like. C *can* do that, or
> rather, I can do that in C. (In all fairness, I've been
> writing C for probably twenty
> years.)
>
> Are we done with the "C Language Roast" now? -- Ian
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Julian Wolfe wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > There's the verdict folks, you can either be conformist,

> sloppy, and
> > overpaid or nonconformist, hardcore, and underpaid - and varying
> >> From either side will just get you frustrated.

> >
> > My $0.020983745098327509823745
> > Julian
> > ----------
> > To unsubscribe (or subscribe) from (to) this list, send a

> message to
> > info-pdp11-request@village.org, with the first line of the message
> > body being "unsubscribe" or "subscribe", respectively

> (without the quotes).
> >

>

----------
To unsubscribe (or subscribe) from (to) this list, send a message to
info-pdp11-request@village.org, with the first line of the message
body being "unsubscribe" or "subscribe", respectively (without the quotes).