Re: Boost process and C
- From: Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 13:11:37 -0700
jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Ben Pfaff a icrit :
websnarf@xxxxxxxxx writes:
You are saying you should throw out an entire language because youIt depends on your priorities. I wouldn't want to rewrite a Perl
don't like the way it handles strings?
program that does complex string processing in C. It's going to
get a lot longer and possibly harder to read (depending on how
much taste the Perl programmer had).
You mean then in substance:
"Since C strings are completely screwed up, do NOT try to change that,
but learn Perl".
No. I mean that some string operations can be expressed shorter
and with more clarity in Perl than in C. No new string library
will change this.
If you want to actually change the C language to improve its
string support, as you seem to want, that's completely separate.
But your changes to C won't affect my software for 10 years or
more, because that's at least how long it'll take for them to get
into the standard (assuming they ever do) and then make it into
a wide range of real-world implementations.
--
"When I have to rely on inadequacy, I prefer it to be my own."
--Richard Heathfield
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Boost process and C
- From: websnarf
- Re: Boost process and C
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Boost process and C
- References:
- Re: Boost process and C
- From: websnarf
- Re: Boost process and C
- From: Ben Pfaff
- Re: Boost process and C
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Boost process and C
- Prev by Date: Re: Casting void * to void ** ?
- Next by Date: Re: Casting void * to void ** ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Boost process and C
- Next by thread: Re: Boost process and C
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|