home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!nntp.msstate.edu!whale.st.usm.edu!chambles
- From: chambles@whale.st.usm.edu (John William Chambless)
- Subject: Re: People's Criticism of C (was Re: Macros)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov22.125044.575@ra.msstate.edu>
- Sender: news@ra.msstate.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: whale.st.usm.edu
- Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
- References: <Bxu067.4L0@research.canon.oz.au> <1992Nov18.001903.24137@ra.msstate.edu> <By02nr.5E8@research.canon.oz.au>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 12:50:44 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <By02nr.5E8@research.canon.oz.au> andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
- >
- >Well in other environments where you have tools that can possibly be
- >used incorrectly and cause damage you have regulatory bodies. Think
- >about the USA's FAA, FCC, FDA, etc... Should there be a Federal
- >Computer Language Authority that dictates what langauges can be used
- >and in what situations? (Shades of the UK's DoD standards.)
- >
- I don't think so, Andy.
- The agencies you named all deal with issues of health and/or safety.
- Governments need not interfere in choice of language, because:
- 1) It is a semi-artistic decision.
- 2) Different programmers use differnet languages for the same job.
- 3) Government regulation is the most efficient way to foul
- anything up.
-
- The point I was making about people criticising C is that C is a
- super-effective tool for many programmers, provided they take the time
- to learn all the little quirks of the language.
-
- In programming, as in real life, freedom implies responsibility.
-
- Personally, I think the folks who dislike C should stick to another
- language. COBOL is pretty safe :).
-
- --
- * Billy Chambless University of Southern Mississippi, USA
- * chambles@whale.st.usm.edu
- *
- * Programming exclusively in (--(C++))
-