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