Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:51:05 -0400
Anand Hariharan wrote:
.... snip ...
Flash - I agree with you in that, I consider Pascal to be simpler
than C. Since I have never had to maintain a code base in Pascal
(my only stint with Pascal was as a freshman in college, and I
very likely wrote buggy code, but I never had to review enough
Pascal code to uncover bugs), I can't offer an opinion about
which language is (inherently) more easily susceptible to bugs.
I can. I spent many years concentrating on Pascal, building Pascal
systems and Pascal applications. Properly used Pascal is much less
bug susceptible than C. The point is that most such bugs will
appear at compilation time, and the code need never be run to debug
them. It is especially important to properly type design the
elements.
There is virtually no advantage for those who just write C using
Pascal code.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
.
- References:
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: jacob navia
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: jacob navia
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: jameskuyper
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: Flash Gordon
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: Anand Hariharan
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: Flash Gordon
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: jacob navia
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- From: Anand Hariharan
- Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- Prev by Date: Re: strcpy - my implementation
- Next by Date: Re: strcpy - my implementation
- Previous by thread: Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- Next by thread: Re: UNIX, C, Perl
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|