home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.unibw-muenchen.de!demokrit!dirk
- From: dirk@demokrit.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de (Dirk Dickmanns)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.object
- Subject: Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer
- Date: 18 Mar 96 10:49:02 GMT
- Organization: University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich
- Message-ID: <dirk.827146142@demokrit>
- References: <1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <3taaha$p8j@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4id7re$2k5@news4.digex.net> <4idgedINNob4@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: demokrit.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #40 (NOV)
-
- (newsgroups trimmed)
-
- c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:
-
- ... Bertrands marketing hype snipped (he shouldn't have done it that way ;-) ...
-
- >So, why should a programmer _not_ use special techniques and tricks permitted
- >by a language?
-
- Maybe, if you can ever understand this, because someone less of a
- genius than you should not only read, but also _understand_ what the
- code deos. If that guy cost you something between $2 and $5 a minute,
- you would like him to understand it fast and not being hampered by a
- (hacked) syntax not really :-) designed for readability.
-
- >What the C standard _permits_ you to do is perfectly legal. It gives you
- >well-defined behavior that will translate correctly.
-
- Omigod KK (or cjiv?). This is completely irrelevant. It is also right
- for (most) machine codes, assemblers, Java byte code...
-
- >This thread is full of clueless, idiotic postings that are devoid of concrete
- >examples, the excerpt from this Bertrand character's book is no exception.
- >He is clearly a clueless twit who should not be published.
-
- If anyone here is somewhat clueless, guess who (besides me :-) This
- one stamps you to an <add expletive here>.
-
- >If he actually gave a solid example, a knowledgeable expert would be able to
- >rip him to shreds. Vagueness is the ultimate defence of persuasive authors who
- >use the emotional appeal of the written word to coerce like-minded individuals
- >into a particular opinion. If we had Bertrand right here and criticized his
- >writing openly, he could---endlessly, no doubt---keep backing out by saying ``I
- >didn't say that'', ``I didn't mean that'' and so forth. Of course not: he
- >bloody _didn't_ say a damn thing!
-
- Wonderful argument -- no technical content.
-
- Actually, I didn't like what Bertrand wrote either. But what you said
- about him shows what you really are. Read it carefully again -- he
- cannot afford bringing up the whole world against him, and he
- explicated quite exactly what _in_ _his_ opinion hackers are. I do
- not agree with him on his definition of hacker, but the people _he_
- subsumes under this term are harmful to any reasonable software
- project, as most probably you (damned shit, now I replied with a ad
- hominem attack... flame me, flame me!).
-
- >Some books, on the other hand, are so loaded with interesting content that
- >reading but a few pages leaves one enlightented, and returning to the book time
- >and time again one learns something new.
-
- Yes, I found some of them to be about other languages than C and C++.
- I do almost no programming in Eiffel any more (in favor of Ada 95 and,
- yes, ANSI C), anyway the books of BM were enlightening (thanks go to
- Bertrand).
-
- >Other books are just full of self-righteous spouting without substance. It's
- >not too hard to see in what category this belongs.
-
- Ok, ok, some of his pages (also those about Ada) are, hmmmm, at least
- a bit questionable and maybe not quite fair. Keep in mind that BM has
- to sell his language when you read his books, then they are very, very
- good.
-
- (Kazimir, one week kill file entries showed up to be much too short!)
-
- Dirk
-
- --
- Dirk Dickmanns -- real-time dynamic computer vision
- Sun OS 4.1.3; PC Linux; dying: Transputers - embedded
- Ada 95, Ada 83, OCCAM2/3, ANSI C, Eiffel 3, PROLOG, C++
-