Typesafety versus Worse is Better - was Re: Fwd: is there any word processing software for the pdp11?
bqt at update.uu.se
Thu Dec 4 04:54:34 CST 2014
On 2014-12-04 05:05, Josh Dersch wrote:
> On 12/3/2014 6:45 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> 40 years ago would never dream of doing since they would be thinking
>> of how this translates into machine code much more.
>> So in the end, with people getting less proper education, a stricter
>> language is our only hope. But for people who are good at
>> programming, the obstacles of stricter languages becomes annoying and
>> reduces productivity, for much less gain.
> I've not found this to be true in my experience -- what "obstacles" are
> you speaking of?
I have a hard time giving specific examples out of thin air. But I
certainly have been in situations where I have been writing code just to
get around the compiler to just do what I want, which I knew
conceptually would be very simple, but the language don't give me an
easy way to do it.
>> In the end, no one size fits all.
> Agreed, but not for the reason you use above; if I'm reading your
> statement right your sizes are: "C: for people who are good at
> programming" and "stricter languages: for people who need help." No one
> size fits all in that some languages are suitable for certain tasks, and
> some are more suitable for others. The discussion here is mainly that C
> is applied in many areas where it is not the best choice.
No. You read too much into it. In my opinion, there is no one language
that is the universal solution, for any one person. It depends on the
situation. Sometimes, C is a good tool for the job, if you are good at
it. Sometimes it is not, even if you are good at it.
But since I added "if you are good at it", it also implies that the same
problem might call for different tools also based on your skills.
More information about the cctalk