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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 11440e,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid11440e,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-07 11:14:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Pete Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:14:47 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fjgha$blf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <35mqhtkdfma2rggv1htcaq6vfn2ihs67a1@4ax.com> <9fli1b$4aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ruby:10458 comp.lang.ada:8336 comp.lang.awk:2851 comp.lang.clarion:21334 comp.lang.java.programmer:74468 comp.lang.pl1:855 comp.lang.vrml:3597 Date: 2001-06-07T11:14:47-07:00 List-Id: On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 13:58:13 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: Lawsuits over bugs?! Say it ain't so! In all seriousness, yes you could try to use safeguards, but there are cases where you simply cannot defend someone from themselves. How would you put safeguards on a hammer? A hammer's already pretty basic. The only thing I could think of is to tell someone to use an electric hammer instead, but that's an entirely different tool to accomplish the same task. Similarly, if someone's so worried about pointers and memory, then I'd just tell him to use Java instead. But there are times where you just can't anticipate ahead of time what the programmers may do... who woulda thunk that NASA would allow a simple imperial/metric mistake to screw up a mission? :) >In article , Pete Thompson says... >> >>Well, sure it's subject to abuse. However, that's the fault of the programmer, >>not the language itself. I too froth at the mouth whenever someone makes a >>stupid use of operator overloading in C++, or write unnecessary compound >>statements. >.. >>A hammer's just so damn useful, but I still sometimes hit my thumb. > >Real-world tools are actually a damn good analogy here. For example, whenever >someone takes their fingers off with a table-saw, its the fault of the user. >However, that doesn't stop table-saw makers from putting guards and other safety >features on them, does it? Languages, like any other tool, can be designed with >user safety in mind, or they can be built in a way that practicly invites users >to maim themselves. Sure, its the user's own stupid fault when they do so. But >their first mistake was using the unsafely designed tool in the first place. > >(I know, I know. Lawsuits are actually an issue here, and they aren't typically >in the software world. Please lets ignore that issue for a minute. No analogy is >perfect. ) > >--- >T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html > home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com