🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5282@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US
(Charles Marslett) writes:

>In article <36243@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> leichter@venus.ycc.yale.edu
>(Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU)leichter@venus.ycc.yale.edu
>(Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU)leichter@venus.ycc.yale.edu
>(Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU)leichter@venus.ycc.yale.edu
>(Jerr writes:

[A rather unusual name :-) .]

>>On the contrary:  C is NOT woefully deficient for the vast majority of
>>applications to which the vast majority of "paying users" are interested in
>>applying it.

[back to chasm@killer:]

>I find this comment and the attitude of the author woefully parochial
>-- I do not program in COBOL and I might not even recognize a either a
>data entry language or a data base language if it hit me in the face,
>but I do know that more money ... is spent on programs that are [done
>in other languages] ....  C is not a universal language and she does
>not appear to be expanding into other areas of applicability any more
>rapidly than her elder brother and sister, FORTRAN and LISP.  And I
>think this is both A GOOD THING, and the reason that it is unlikely to
>be a major language 20 years from now.

This is curious, because I see Jerry Leichter and Charles Marslett as
basically in agreement---so why should this attitude be `woefully
parochial'?  That C does not make a good functional programming
language is no surprise; that people who pay for programs written in C
are not paying for such code should also be no surprise; and hence that
there is no great push for C to be augmented with everything out of
Miranda and FP combined should likewise be no surprise.

To return somewhat to the original subject:  If you believe that, with
a few tweaks that would either improve, or at least not damage, the
language, C could become an ideal language for numerical software, it
is then your job to demonstrate it.  Make the changes---write yourself
a compiler, or have someone else write it---and show that the new
language is better than the old.  If it is sufficiently better,
programmers will beat a path to your mailbox, and the new language will
become popular in the same way that C became popular.  And if *you* are
not willing to put in the effort, why then should *we* be?
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris