Re: Why C Is Not My Favourite Programming Language

From: Nicolas Pavlidis (pavnic_at_sbox.tugraz.at)
Date: 02/13/05 

Date: 13 Feb 2005 14:29:38 +0100

"Mabden" <mabden@sbc_global.net> writes:

> "Joona I Palaste" <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:cu5mri$rc8$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> > evolnet.regular@gmail.com scribbled the following
> > on comp.lang.c:
> > > In that case, why is it that there are so many buffer overflows in
> so
> > > many C programs written by presumably experienced coders and yet so
> few
> > > in programs written in *any other language*?
> >
> > I find it hard to believe there are more buffer overflows in C
> programs
> > than there are in assembly programs. Unless you don't count assembly
> as
> > a language.
>
> My axiom:
> C is a Master's Language. Simple, Elegant, Powerful. Like a handgun. In
> the right hands, it executes perfectly. In the wrong hands, it simply
> executes.

My Problem with C is the following:
If you want to write robust, extedible and safe code, the code gets a
bit unreadable very fast. This problem is shared by all procedual
languages, allthough C has more conzepts to write such code than other
languages of this kind.

> My opinion:
> The idea of why C bugs may be seen more often than "other" languages, is
> simple. Everything you use is written in C. Your Perl translator was
> written in C, as was your Visual Basic compiler. Whatever you think is
> "safe" probably has a lot of C code in it. Certainly your C++ compiler
> does (also, probably mostly straight C / ASM).

Thats true, but it is often better to use other languages to get the
result, as using C, because of the reason I said before.

Kind regards,
Nicolas 

-- 
|     Nicolas Pavlidis       |       Elvis Presly:    |\ |__      |
|   Student of SE  & KM      |      "Into the goto"   | \|__|     |
|  pavnic@sbox.tugraz.at     |       ICQ #320057056      |        |
|-------------------University of Technology, Graz----------------|

Relevant Pages