Maybe it is just the time people start to realize that few operators like
++, << or += that virtually makes C as a "system programming language" is
not everything.

Tamas



On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:27 AM, William "Chops" Westfield <westfw@mac.com>wrote:

>
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 1:09 PM, sergio masci wrote:
>
> > Yes but the problem is: are you prepared to take the risk and try a
> > new programming language just to discover its strengths and
> > weaknesses, to see it really will save you a great deal of time in
> > both development and maintinance? And if you are, is your boss?
>
> It's worse than that.  Since a big point about using C now is that it
> allows code to be (mostly) portable between different CPUs, any would-
> be replacement has to appear nearly simultaneously on at least a half-
> dozen platform to even begin to be taken seriously.  (This doesn't
> reflect on Olin's point that C "should have been better."  It just
> reflects the way things ARE, now.)
>
> (Hmm.  I wonder if I can claim the reverse?  That languages that had
> ANY standardization effort AFTER "C" became known should have paid
> more attention to why C was gaining popularity?  Why didn't Pascal, AS
> A STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE, pick up features that would have made it more
> acceptable as a systems programming language?  People were still
> writing operating systems code in Assembly Language well into the
> 1980s, right?  (Was it VMS that was mostly in Bliss?  (Now there was
> another language failure.))
>
> BillW
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>



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