mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin) (01/10/89)
> problem the compiler writer had to deal with. If a translator for a > language exists on a machine, it should translate programs into a form > that executes correctly on the target machine, or at least inform the > operator that a problem exists. That's the whole point of a high level > language. presumaby you expect C to detect arithmetic overflow as well. and subscript errors. and invalid pointers and ... C is not a high level language. C is not a language for the average programmer. its wholesale adoption by the PC community is a disaster for both the language and that community. perhaps you should consider something in the Pascal line.
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (01/11/89)
> presumaby you expect C to detect arithmetic overflow as well. > and subscript errors. > and invalid pointers > and ... Nope, I expect it to do what the spec says. The spec says that subscripting out of bounds and overflow is undefined. It also says that pointer subtraction works. The Intel C compiler seems not to conform to the spec, so it isn't C. > C is not a high level language. Untrue. > C is not a language for the average programmer. We're not talking average programmers. Were talking about people who know how C is supposed to work and have been using it on other machines.
m5@lynx.uucp (Mike McNally) (01/11/89)
In article <492@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin) writes: >presumaby you expect C to detect arithmetic overflow as well. >and subscript errors. >and invalid pointers >and ... You presume wrong. >C is not a high level language. Bullshit. >C is not a language for the average programmer. >its wholesale adoption by the PC community is a disaster >for both the language and that community. >perhaps you should consider something in the Pascal line. I don't program PC's unless it's under my own OS; even then I consider them to be hideous piles of festering reeking mucous. The issue has nothing to do with that, however. Whatever kind of language you think C is, it has a semantic definition. If a compiler does not implement the required semantics, it's busted. If you don't mind using it, go for it; I don't give a cold bucket of piss. -- Mike McNally Lynx Real-Time Systems uucp: {voder,athsys}!lynx!m5 phone: 408 370 2233 Where equal mind and contest equal, go.
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (01/12/89)
According to mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin): >C is not a high level language. To paraphrase Peter Norton, who made a similar point: `C is an industrial-strength language. Now, most everyone thinks that they want an industrial-strength language. But what most people forget is that "industrial-strength" also means "not safe for pets and small children".' Although I like C, I tend to agree with Norton on this point. >C is not a language for the average programmer. In fact, C is not a language for *sub*-standard programmers. That doesn't stop them from using it, unfortunately. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (01/13/89)
>>C is not a language for the average programmer. > > In fact, C is not a language for *sub*-standard programmers. > That doesn't stop them from using it, unfortunately. Nor, evidentally from the MicroSoft example, does it stop them from attempting to write C compilers. -Ron