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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: steve Subject: Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1997/12/18 Message-ID: <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 308595998 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <349745D3.F4AA0460@seasoned-software.com> <34994D43.6858@ici.net> <01bd0c0b$53cc1860$26db45cf@juddesk> <67ccvl$iqj$1@darla.visi.com> <67comb$94o@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3498B5A6.C404C703@seasoned-software.com> <67dc5k$o02@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> To: James Giles Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------DF209B2A1A3FF0E9A44190E1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DF209B2A1A3FF0E9A44190E1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Giles wrote: > steve wrote in message <3498B5A6.C404C703@seasoned-software.com>... > ... > >ACTUALLY, Linux itself, and many programs, are SYSTEMS code! Some > >features can't or shouldn't be used, and it is ALWAYS more prone to > >errors. It surprises me how well Linux generally runs, and rarely > >crashes! > > An interesting attitude. The system is the one component of > the programming environment that everyone *must* use every > time they use the computer. It *should* be the most robust, > efiicient, and secure piece of code on the machine. You're right(and I said always more PRONE), but there always seems to be problems somewhere. Especially if you are constantly upgrading it like Linux. Whenever *I* see an error, it almost always gets fixed in the next release. > The attitude > that it needn't be seems to be a UNIXism. Most of what people consider UNIX is in peripheral programs. It isn't a part of the kernel itself.One error in Linux that I have seen that I never saw fixed(although others didn't seem to have the problem), is with support of >2GB drives. THAT is one place where tricks have to be pulled. I noticed that my disk repair utilities(though the latest from the author) aren't doing such things, though Linux IS. > To be sure, pre-UNIX > systems had security an reliability problems (they were trying to > make general purpose use of hardware we would now consider > inadequate to run a toaster). Well, TODAY all you have to do is diasable the fans, and VOILA! TOAST! 8-) > There's no excuse for this attitude > today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that > UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses. > Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness > of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and > efficient. And windows with its DLLS is? What of the security problems in IE4? ... > >How many C programmers learned ONLY C? I doubt that it is very many. > > Well, you're welcome to your perceptions. I'd guess that > only about 1 in 10 C (C++, maybe Java, etc...) programmers > I've ever met had any real substantial experience with any > language outside that group. OK, I have different experiences with C programmers. > Unless you count AWK or SED > as real languages! Yet those with the least knowlwdge of other > languages are always the quickest to dismiss languages > with pat excuses ("Ada is too big", well it's smaller than C++ > and more cleanly designed - "Fortran makes you use GOTOs > all the time", well it has all the "structured" flow control of any > other language and actually restricts the use of GOTO more > than C does - etc...). > > Now, among other things, I have in the past provided on-site > maintenence for C compilers at a national laboratory. I dealt > with C programmers from around the world and at a time when > they could *not* claim that the language never caused them any > problems: when they had a bug they couldn't identify or fix. So, > while your perception may be different than mine, I'll still claim > that mine is at least as valid. I'll say one thing, C programmers > are extremely loyal: they always accept the blame for their bugs. > Even when it's a kind of bug I see often in C programs and almost > never in any other language, they don't blame the language. Well, most things common to C that you would call bugs ARE generally called features. It IS easier to make a mistake in C. I never heard anyone claim otherwise! Although I HAVE seen COBOL people blame the compiler for mistakes(and it often WAS responsible), THEY are certainly a lowal group too! > -- > J. Giles > Ricercar Software --------------DF209B2A1A3FF0E9A44190E1 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for steve Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: steve n: ;steve org: SEASONED SOFTWARE email;internet: steve@seasoned-software.com note: notes would be here! x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------DF209B2A1A3FF0E9A44190E1--