Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language
From: Preben Randhol (randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news_at_pvv.org)
Date: 02/06/04
- Next message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Previous message: Thomas Fleige: "Re: XML SAX parsing between the element tags"
- In reply to: Les Cargill: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Next in thread: Martin Krischik: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:26:55 +0000 (UTC)
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.ada.]
On 2004-02-06, Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> 'C' is a right-regular language, with good orthogonality of
> operators. That literally means "easy to read" - or at least
> having the capacity to be writrten in a fashion that is easy
> to read.
This is simply not true. How come there are so many buffer overflow
security problems then? However, let us not start a language war again
(as usually happens each time somebody crosspost between several
language newsgroups).
> If you've ever seen any deep Perl code, you'd understand :)
And if you had seen Ada95 code you would understand that C[++] isn't
readable. Especially with huge projects.
-- "Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming language."
- Next message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Previous message: Thomas Fleige: "Re: XML SAX parsing between the element tags"
- In reply to: Les Cargill: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Next in thread: Martin Krischik: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|