Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel

["Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net>]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> Be honest Marc. Read the title of your own post. It's clear to me that
> this post was not dispassionate observation, but a snide attempt to
> disparage Cyclone on behalf of Ada.

I agree it wasn't dispassionate, but I hardly considered it snide.  To
me, it was indeed intentionally a little provocative to catch people's
attention, but apparently my line between provocative and snide doesn't
line up with that of some other's--which is fine, everyone has their own
set of hot buttons, including me :-)

> The ACM mailing list usually refers
> to popular journals which are known to be poor sources of information.

I agree that the referenced publications are typically popular, since
those are most readily available on newsstands and the Internet
(InfoWorld, Scientific American, LA Times, NY Times, MSNBC, etc.).  But
referring to them, their articles, and the authors of those articles as
"poor sources of information" seems a bit unfair.

> 
> Simply typing "cyclone cornell language" into Google brings you right to
> the Cyclone home page.
> 
> I've read lots of negative propaganda about Ada in the popular press, in
> fact I've even heard it from the mouths of respected academicians at
> Stanford. Does that kind of idiocy bear repeating here? Wouldn't you laugh
> at me if I used "The New Hacker Dictionary" to indict Ada?

Yes I would, but then I wouldn't give "The New Hacker Dictionary" the
same credence I would an article in "New Scientist".

> > Assuming the New Scientist article was reasonably accurate, I abstracted
> > it into a brief posting that was at least half quotes from the article.
> > In addition, I stated that I was sure this was not just "C with
> > constraint checking", because something as simple as that would hardly
> > merit academic reasearch (I'm serious about that, not sarcastic).
> >
> > My intent then was to take the next opportunity to do a little more
> > research on Cyclone and get the full story behind the New Scientist
> > article.
> 
> You're being disingenuous again, Marc. The title of this thread suggests
> that *you* are simply saying "Why do these idiots bother creating yet
> another C variant when Ada already has everything they want?"

Okay, bad title.  Carried more connotations than I intended.

> > But since I'm an idiot, an ignoramus, and don't know anything, I
> > probably wouldn't understand it.
> 
> Your *post* was certainly idiotic and ignorant, but it's a big leap from
> there to the insult you're responding to.

Well, I disagree on the merits of the intent of the original post, but
do refer to "IsaelRT"'s posting regarding unwarranted personal attacks.

Marc