Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer
From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Where's the falafel?)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: C Bigotry (Erratum)
Message-ID: <6286@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Mar-84 12:17:31 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.6286
Posted: Sat Mar 17 12:17:31 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Mar-84 08:22:28 EST
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 30

Good heavens!
	I wasn't aware of the text-gobbler, and my last submission
suffered from it.  Let's see if I can reconstruct what I said:

> 
> 	There's no point in comparing C and Pascal, because C is a
> medium-level language and Pascal is a higher-level language.
>	What is meant by C's "efficiency" isn't necessarily its
> code generation, which is dependent on the compiler; nor how much
> it holds the programmer's hand, which is dependent on the availa-
> bility and usage of features that can be turned on and off.  Since
> I do most of my work on a VMS system, I use DEC's VAX C, which has
> all the same debugging and tracing and some of the checking features
> as all the other languages DEC makes for VMS.
>	What's efficient about C is its ease of implementation and
> a reduction in development and relearning time because your systems
> programmers don't need to code in assembly language.
> 

	As promised, the lost part was belaboring the obvious; though
it set the context for the rest of what I said.

	By the way, I guess it's only fair to admit that *I* am a C
bigot of sorts.  I think C's the greatest thing since unsliced whole-
wheat bread (and the greatest thing since C is Gosling's EMACS).
		<_Jym_>

| Jym Dyer | Nashua, New Hampshire | ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer |

Sat 17-Mar-1984 12:23 Zen (not EST!) Time