On 2012-05-21, at 16:22, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The first is "the enemy of the best is good enough" and C was good enough...
for a time. It solved a problem (portable machine programming) better and
faster than its contemporaries and even much later languages.
Not just "good enough", I used
On May 21, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
This is a personal observation, folks to code C like details of bits and
registers and hardware details and such.
Novices like to prattle on about C being just another assembly
language, but they don't know what they're talking about.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 02:53:52PM -0700, David Parsons wrote:
>Novices like to prattle on about C being just another assembly
>language, but they don't know what they're talking about.
No, C-- was just another assembly language. Actually it was a slightly
C-like wrapper language that expected
On 2012.5.20 4:40 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
> Smalltalk was also not low level enough to be used as an alternative to C.
> It wouldn't even fit in the PDP-11 they started with.
Never claimed it was.
>> The list was done evaluating C as a language we use and are heavily
>> influenced
>> by in 20
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> I'll give you the fall-through in case.
There are some other things that were fixed in later versions:
Single namespace for structure and union members
No function argument type checking
There are some things that haven't been fixed:
const
Operators (particularly * &
