George Neuner wrote: > On 13 Jul 2006 08:45:49 -0700, "Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >On the other hand, there is no problem domain for which pointers > >are a requirement. I agree they are deucedly convenient, though. > > > > I would argue that pointers/references _are_ a requirement for I/O. I > know of no workable method for interpreting raw bits as meaningful > data other than to overlay a typed template upon them.
I think I know what you mean. I agree that pointers are necessary for, e.g., device drivers. So I have to weaken my earlier statement. > Categorically disallowing address manipulation functionally cripples > the language because an important class of programs (system programs) > cannot be written. That's fair, although I could argue how important systems programming is these days. (And C/C++ are cock-of-the-walk there anyway.) > Of course, languages can go overboard the other way too. IMO, C did > not need to provide address arithmetic at the language level, > reinterpretable references and array indexing would have sufficed for > any use. Modula 3's type safe view is an example of getting it right. > > It is quite reasonable to say "I don't write _____ so I don't need > [whatever language feature enables writing it]". It is important, > however, to be aware of the limitation and make your choice > deliberately. Agreed. Marshall -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
