home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19 / NN_1992_19.iso / spool / comp / lang / fortran / 3360 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-09-01  |  1.5 KB
  1. Xref: sparky comp.lang.fortran:3360 comp.std.c:2551
  2. Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.std.c
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!thinkage!atbowler
  4. From: atbowler@thinkage.on.ca (Alan Bowler)
  5. Subject: Re: Small Language Wanted
  6. Message-ID: <1992Sep2.005911.15324@thinkage.on.ca>
  7. Organization: /etc/organization
  8. References: <BURLEY.92Aug29143538@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <9224317.28165@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Sep1.130600.25488@siia.mv.com>
  9. Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:59:11 GMT
  10. Lines: 20
  11.  
  12. In article <1992Sep1.130600.25488@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes:
  13. >
  14. >I believe the real rationale for reserving these words was so that
  15. >certain computer hardware vendors could "inline" the functions and
  16. >boost their performance.  The fact that programmers who know what
  17. >they're doing could no longer replace pieces of the libraries for
  18. >debugging or *performance* reasons, was apparently of no consequence.
  19. >
  20. >IMHO, the "safety" provided by this reservation is far outweighed by
  21. >the crippling of standard programming practice.
  22. >
  23.  
  24. I don't see any evidence that "programmer's who know what they are
  25. doing" can't still do replacements for debugging an performance
  26. reasons.  If they know what they are doing, then they know how the
  27. implementation they are working with performs, from this they can
  28. figure out how to do the replacements.  If they don't know how to do a
  29. replacement they they clearly don't know enough to be decsribed as
  30. "knowing what they are doing".
  31.  
  32.