Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)

[dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

James Robinson said

"  Frankly, I can't think of anything better.  We looked all over, and
this is the best there was.  Remember, the problem is not that it fails
to work as advertized, and it is not that it is unstable or buggy or
unpredictable.  The problem is that if you try to do something a little
bit different from what it's designed for it stops being friendly and
starts being obscure.  By contrast, if I want one of my C libraries
to do something a bit different, I just go in and modify them."

This is as wrong as it could be, and basically could only be written by
someone who has not understood the whole point of data abstraction,
using the term widely to encompass object oriented programming as well.
The whole point of abstraction is to make it easier to reuse code.
C has advantages, particularly in the simplicity of its computing model,
and simple syntax, but there is a price to be paid for this simplicity,
and the price is precisely almost complete lack of data abstraction.
And it is this lack of data abstraction that makes "just go in and modify"
type programming MUCH harder in C than in any higher level language with
proper abstraction facilities (Ada, C++, ...)

James, if you disagree, then I suspect you just don't have much experience
with higher level languages, or, if you do, that, as is common with programmers
whose primary experience is with C, you have not yet fully understood what
data abstraction and the design of abstract interfaces is about (let alone
object oriented programming). It is certainly true that much of (the worst of)
C++ code that is around today was clearly written by C programmers who have
not yet started to understand what C++ is about.