On 2005-02-09, Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [C] isn't - it's a portable assembler.
>>>
>>> I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me.
>>
>> I think the point is that C is a low-level, hardware twiddling
>> language to be used by people writing things like kernel code --
>
> And Python interpreters?
No. That's my point. C isn't a good language in which to write
user applications such as a Python language. One uses C when
the other choice is assembly, not when the other choice is
"real" high level language like Python, or Modula-3, or
Smalltalk, or whatever.
>> The fact that C ended up in the rather inappropriate role of
>> a user-land application language is different problem.
>
> In the early 80's, either C was the "appropriate language" or
> there was none ... and that's coming from someone who wrote a
> commercial Pascal compiler, runtime support, and debugger. I
> did it all in C. Pascal, as we all know, was ill-conceived.
I never thought so. I did embedded systems development using
Pascal and quite enjoyed it. Later when Pascal waned and C
waxed, I thought C was a definite step backwards. I thought
Modula-2 and Modula-3 were both good languages as well.
> C++ was a momentous advance,
Now C++ _was_ ill-conceived. It's more of an agglomeration of
features than Perl. And dangerous to boot: at least Perl tries
to protect you from memory leaks and stray pointers.
> but it intensionally inherited many of C's warts.
And added a bunch of it's own.
This is pretty much completely off-topic now. :)
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm definitely not
at in Omaha!
visi.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
