jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (04/27/89)
From article <10122@smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn): > However, if you don't like C, you're doing the readers of this newsgroup > a disservice by complaining about it, just as it does nobody any good > for VMS advocates to argue that UNIX is awful in the UNIX newsgroups. I agree entirely with this assessment. In fact, I was going to recommend that this thread of the discussion be moved to comp.lang.misc where it is at least plausible that program language design features can be discussed with a eye toward the design of new languages. Examination of the percieved mistakes in C has a valid application in this context. > [...] If it weren't too late now, > suggestions about ways to improve the language would have been useful > too. (I don't recall seeing yours in the mountain we had to wade > through before or during the public reviews of the proposed C standard.) I read the draft standard cover-to-cover. I disqualified myself on making comment, however, because most of my objections to the language involve features that most people consider to be the 'heart' of C. A suggesion that intrinsic operators with side-effects should not be implemented would hardly have been accepted as serious criticism by a committee standardizing C, for example.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (04/27/89)
In article <12715@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >A suggesion that intrinsic operators with side-effects should not be >implemented would hardly have been accepted as serious criticism by >a committee standardizing C, for example. Serious, perhaps. Feasible, certainly not. I agree with the move of discussions about what programming languages "should" be like (as opposed to what C actually is) to comp.lang.misc.