🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <763@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
>  (2) C programmers mostly work on micros, workstations, or minicomputers,
>      so they are not acquainted with pipelining, vectorizing, parallel
>      processing, etc., so they do not know what they are missing by using C.

You may be right, but I doubt your generalizations apply to *numerical*
programmers who happen to use C. I'd certainly feel quite restricted
without the network facilities I use (from C) to handle large-scale
parallel processing. And I regularly use a minisuper and a supermini
with state-of-the art vectorizing and pipelining respectively.

>  (1) Stop doing numerical work [ :-) ]
>  (2) Find or develop a language suitable for this sort of work.
>  Perhaps most practicioners would prefer solution (2) ???
> I like your suggestion of Turing.  Have you looked at Eiffel?  I am also 
> investigating Occam.  Any opinions on this?

I've found C good enough. Why should I switch?

---Dan