Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!cuuxb!mwm From: mwm@cuuxb.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,soc.singles Subject: Re: REXX ? As in Tyrannosuarus REXX ? Message-ID: <973@cuuxb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Dec-86 15:07:18 EST Article-I.D.: cuuxb.973 Posted: Fri Dec 12 15:07:18 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Dec-86 20:32:17 EST References: <1184@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> <637@argus.UUCP> <696@hoxna.UUCP> <649@argus.UUCP> Reply-To: mwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) Followup-To: comp.lang.misc Organization: AT&T-IS, Software Support, Lisle IL Lines: 71 Xref: watmath comp.lang.misc:44 soc.singles:2083 In article <649@argus.UUCP> ken@argus.UUCP writes: >Quite a few projects have been designed with Pascal (several compilers >come to mind), and I'm not refering to Turbo Pascal. The C "language" >is such a joke its ridiculous. A local flowerchild here says "You've >got to understand the evolution of the language to use it" in response >to my question as to why there are so many inconsistencies in the language. >When I complain about inconsistencies and bugs in the libraries, I get >"That's not a bug, that's a feature". BULL. It's a bug if the documentation >says it does one thing, and the run does something else. That's like if >the right turn signal on a car activates the left turn light. And then >is all the stupid junk of having to order modules in archives in a certain >fashion. Haven't they heard of a two pass linker? "Old fashioned" Univac >has one that even dynamically links and loads modules as they are needed. > >The Ada standardization group has, among other things, not only defined >the language, but the environment and libraries around it. This is >good because the only way a language can be really portable is if the >language, libraries, and the environment expected are all consistent >and the same. > >REXX is a interpreted language similar to shell on Unix. But instead of >all the crazy junk that looks more like line noise there are well defined >control structures that enable maintainable programs to be written. > >> Strong typing is for weak minds, >Written by someone who wants to ensure job security by writting >code that only he can maintain. And then he maintains it only >if he feels like it, thus achieving a demi-god status. ... >Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 First of all WHY WAS THIS IN SOC.SINGLES?!?!?! If you want to discuss programming languages, do it in comp.lang.misc. I have posted this reply to that group as well, and aimed followups there as well. To those that are tired of this discussion in soc.singles, hit 'n' now... Yes C does not use strong type checking, and *some implementations* use single pass linker for speed. I have never seen a standard C library routine that did not perform as documented. What most people think of as inconsistencys in C are mainly differences between C and other languages. While C does have some inconsistencies which are mildly annoying, they are at worst only a minor inconvenience. Of course, I cannot address what you might be considering as inconsitent, since you didn't give any examples. There are some *derivatives* of Pascal in which large systems have been written, but even Pascal's author, Niklaus Wirth, says it was never intended to be used for anything but a simple introductory language. Your comments on portability are interesting, yet a program that does machine dependant things (such as an operating system kernel) will ALWAYS be machine dependant, no matter how portable the language is. Therefore no language which has constructs powerful enough to get down to the low level and bash bits with the hardware is going to be perfectly portable. Neither C nor Ada nor Modula2 norcan be portable (in the sense that you can take ANY program and run it ANYwhere) unless it prohibits doing machine-dependant things. The original Pascal definition had this quality, but was also useless for things like writing operating systems. Your poke about strong typing and maintainability is at best inflammatory and in bad taste. I have seen beautiful, easy to read C code, and Pascal that would curl your hair. Bad programmers can program poorly in any language, and good programmers can program well in most. -- Marc Mengel "All that is gold does not glitter ...!ihnp4!cuuxb!mwm Not all those who wander are lost The old that is strong does not whither Deep roots are not reached by the frost" -- J.R.R Tolkein