> I'm not sure that one can trust the opinions of "computer scientists"  
> on some issues.  Perhaps not enough of them are "good  
> *programmers*".)  It seems to me that two of the most successful  
> languages (C and Basic) NEVER had much acceptance from academics.  It  
> seems to be a favorite error (?) on their part to exclaim "this  
> structure is evil and a source of bugs; we must not permit our ideal  
> language to allow it at all!" without bothering to understand why that  
> structure is so common, or to provide a replacement.

Bullocks. Like all specialisms, you can not trust just anyone who calls 
himself a "computer scientist" to tell you the final truth. But the 
general direction of computer languages was definitely influenced most 
by Algol60 (block-structure) and SIMULA (OO). Although it often took a 
major overhaul from the industry to make the fresh ideas into something 
workable. Look at a few contributions from the opposite side: FORTRAN, 
PL/1, ADA. Pity everyone who still uses FORTRAN. PL/1, anyone? ADA 
deserved a better faith, but also a much shorter definition.

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist