Re: Fun with C

["Elias Salomão Helou Neto" <eshneto@gmail.com>]

> Uhm, no, that's a misunderstanding, Ada requires quite some thinking,
> it is just that its basic types do not require so much thinking.
>
> I should stress one *major* concern of my favorite approach to
> language definition:
>
> Smart brains should not have to spend time with tackling basic
> programming techniques.  In any language.  They should have all
> their thinking capacity engaged in thinking about smart solutions.
> Not in keeping track of types' implicit sizes. That's wasted effort.
> (PC-lint -w 4 seems to confirm this view.)

There is no time spent thinking about promotions in C when you learn
it. It is surely mor difficult to learn, so you've still made your
point.

>
> If mastering a relatively basic feature of a language requires
> much learning, then this investment should be compared to its results.
> What is the return on investment a programmer spent on implicit
> type size education, say?
>
> Among the observable results are these:
>
> (a) you know how to use basic programming features
>
> (b) you take pride in this ability
>
> (c) you can set yourself apart from others without the skill
>
> Which skill is, nota bene, knowing how to write basics.

Ok, I understand, just please notice that I am not taking pride for
anything. It is quite the opposite, those who don't know the basics
should be ashamed of screaming "C sucks".

>
> > Of course Ada is a better approach for the masses.
>
> Certainly not in full.  Like C++. Because no big, detailed language
> will ever work for the masses.  Subsets may do so, as a starting
> point, I think.
>
> > However, here is my piece of advice: it won't work. See Ariane 5's
> > example.
>
> I understand your idea, I think, but it is this very example that
> has surprisingly little to do with languages, in spite of all
> the ambitious remarks made about the case.  Have you had time to
> look into the report?

I did not. But what I meant was basically that: people will keep doing
dumbness because they are just people (me included). No matter what
language is used.

> > Ada may give programmers a false sense of security, leading
> > to even more sloppiness.
>
> Hmm... Is there an operational definition useful to turn this claim
> into a hypothesis?  I had thought that Ada culture nurtures awareness
> of security issues more than false beliefs in "secure languages".

No there is not and I should not have said that without thinking a
little bit more about it.

>
> > Surely Ada would be a good and justifiable choice for most industrial
> > programming projects, but this is not what C was planned for - don't
> > blame it.
>
> Complaints were addressing using C in industrial projects because of the
> effects it has in industrial projects.  There is evidence that different
> fundamental type  systems help non-dumb people solve their problems more
> successfully.  People will still be using C libraries and additional
> code generators, as a replacement for a better suited type system.

I would like to see this evidence.

>
> If something is going to replace C, it sure mustn't look like Ada.
> Just be like it in some ways.  That's the crucial part, I think.
> Keeps face.