Re: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested

[barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)]

In article <1990Feb28.213543.21748@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) writes:
>	Gee, if you read the language defn you'd know exactly when break
>applies and when break doesn't.  It seems to me that it is the
>programmer's responsibility to know the language in which he is going to
>implement said project -- it's not necessarily the language's responsibility
>to know the programmer didn't read the defn.

What would you say if a car designer used a similar excuse: Gee, if you'd
read the owner's manual for the 6000SUX you'd know that you have to turn
the radio off before stepping on the brake pedal.  It seems to me that it
is the driver's responsibility to know the car he's driving -- it's not
necessarily the manufacturer's responsibility to know that the driver
didn't read the manual.

Yes, it's the resposibility of the programmer to know the language.  But
it's the responsibility of language designers to design languages
reasonably.  If programmer-friendliness weren't an issue we'd still be
programming in machine language.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar