🚀 go-pugleaf

The weak of heart be warned: This is not a friendly article.

In article <65409@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> Why indeed?  Why force the programmer to use explicit pointers when
> the language can be designed to allow the programmer to explicitly
> state what he really wants to do?

That's another really stupid statement. Jim, if I take your favorite
language and add pointers to it without telling the programmer, HOW WILL
HE EVER KNOW? How will adding pointers *force* him to stop using your
gaggle of data structures? How? How? How?

> It's easier for the programmer,

No! If I take C and add the Giles Gaggle to it---through macros, a smart
preprocessor like C++, or whatever---is the programmer ``stuck'' with
pointers? No! Would he find it somehow ``easier'' to code in this
language if the pointers were suddenly stripped away? No!

STOP SAYING THAT POINTERS MAKE THINGS HARDER FOR THE PROGRAMMER!

If you're trying to say that high-level data structures make things
easier, SAY IT! STOP MAKING FALSE, RIDICULOUSLY MISLEADING STATEMENTS!

> easier for the compiler to generate efficient code,

Now *that* is a reasonable assertion. It doesn't make you look like an
idiot, it's a good basis for discussion, and it fact it's the *only*
thing that could be considered a ``pointer problem.'' Any arguments for
eliminating pointers must be based *solely* on compiler and run-time
efficiency.

---Dan's Evil Alter Ego
There, I'm in a much better mood now.