From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2985 comp.lang.ada:3355 comp.lang.c:26442 comp.lang.fortran:2940 comp.lang.lisp:2847 comp.lang.misc:4301 comp.lang.modula2:2128 comp.lang.pascal:3180 comp.lang.scheme:1120 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!think!barmar From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested Message-ID: <34416@news.Think.COM> Date: 1 Mar 90 19:00:10 GMT References: <6960@internal.Apple.COM> <1990Feb28.213543.21748@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Sender: news@Think.COM Followup-To: comp.software-eng Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA List-Id: 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