Wouter van Ooijen <wouter <at> voti.nl> writes:

>=20
> > I would strongly disagree with this statement.  C is not "bad" in gener=
al,
 it is
> > only bad when applied incorrectly.
>=20
> Of course C is not bad in the sense of evil (=3D can only be used for the=
=20
> worse) but IMHO it is undoubtedly bad in the sense that some small=20
> changes could reduce the potential for disaster enormously. Go read=20
> Stroustrup for lots of suggestions. This is not the same as saying that=20
> the original authors did a bad job, rather an observation about how the=20
> computer community as a whole works.
>=20

Agree, any language, including C, can be improved.  C is definitely a produ=
ct of
its time and since computer sciences and applications have advanced, the
original C is not adequate any more.  So it has evolved a bit. =20

If one follows all suggestions by Stroustrup, would we not get C++? =20

My comment was actually targeted to the specific discussions on this list a=
s to
which language is best.  It seems like C vs assembler vs Jal vs whatever
discussions ignite very often and I wanted to point out that there is a rig=
ht
tool for every specific applcation.=20

Sergey Dryga

http://beaglerobotics.com



--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.