Richard Seriani, Sr. wrote:
> Walter wrote about C, "It was never supposed to be a high level
> language just a good way to manage processor resources and
> application data."

That is again a orthogonal argument.  Regardless of what C was intended to
be, it is being applied way beyond its usefulness.  However, my main point
is that C is full of drawbacks that a better design would have avoided
without penalty.  There is no excuse for the irresponsible syntax and lack
of type checking.  You can still do all the same things with a better
language resulting in the same machine code.

> But its
> absence of restrictions and its generality make it more convenient
> and effective for many tasks than supposedly more powerful languages."

The "absence of restrictions" is exactly what I'm talking about.  These two
hackers saw that as a good thing so they didn't have to type a few extra
keystrokes and probably enjoyed writing impenetrable code with as few
characters as possible.  Grow up.

The restrictions I'm talking about are low level that force you to say what
you want more explicitly, not restrictions in things you can get the
language to do for you.  You can still write the same program that compiles
to the same machine code, but with a responsibly designed language the
result is much more readable and the inevitable human errors are more likely
to be caught at compile time and less likely to cause expensive runtime
bugs.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist