Subject: Re: gcc optimizer bug in netbsd-1-6 on alpha (gcc 2.95.3 20010315
To: Nathan J. Williams <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/15/2003 17:44:13
Thus spake Nathan J. Williams ("NJW> ") sometime Today...
NJW> We should be working on abolishing C, not justifying it.
...wow. I can't believe I'm reading this. Show of hands, please, as
to how on target this is? I'm leaving mine down, as I cannot see
this to be a particularly useful concept! Abolish C? Really? And
nail everything into a very tightly defined structure that takes longer
to parse, align, code-generate and (probably) learn?!?
Nathan, you have GOT to hook me up with your supplier (so I can find
out which particular crop of psychotropics I should be avoiding this year).
Now, that's in jest, to be sure, and no affront meant, but I can't wrap my
mind about the opinion that forcing a strict-compliance language is
actually a desirable goal! I don't get it. I'd say chalk it up to my
lack of experience, but one can only say that for so long, especially
when one's lack of experience amounts to about twenty years of programming.
Nothing beyond upper-mid-level, but twenty years, nonetheless, if sporadic.
So chalk it up to prejudice, conditioning and entrenchent, then!
My question stands: What is SO WRONG with C that it should, as you have
put it, "be buried in an unmarked grave at midnight"? I seek enlightenment!
All comments are welcome; if they must be so, drag them off list, but I
think there's more than one person interested in this. I don't have
the werewithal to find my way to conferences, so email will have to do
[I'm good at reading between the scanlines, so don't worry too much
about tone of voice.]
And, again, in case it wasn't evident: Nathan, no offense meant in my
lightly coloured commentary above.
NetBSD: Unix With Balls.