🚀 go-pugleaf

>But there are advantages to having a brittle system.  The actual
>reliability of Mac programs is very high because either a programmer
>gets it right or the entire system dies horribly."
 
I disagree.  Users won't stand for other types of failures either (e.g., when
the program fails saving their document).  I know I want the programs that I
use to just work.  Also, I don't know that I'd agree with the assumption that
the reliability of Mac programs is very high.  That seems like a value
judgement that can't be quantified.
 
 
>>       - C, and C++, are not "safe" languages.  Yes, they are popular.
>>         But you can't make any strong statements about a C or C++
>>               program just because it compiles.  Compare Pascal or Modula.
>>         There's an extensive literature on this subject, and that's
>>               enough to say here.
>
>No argument here.  C++ is one of the biggest mistakes Apple have
>ever made IMHO.
 
Okay, I give up.  Why is Pascal (i.e., MPW Pascal) a safe language?  It seems
that MPW Pascal has extensions that make it unsafe (e.g., @ operator, type
coercion, UNIV).  Why is C++ a mistake?  Compared to Pascal, Modula, or some
other language?
 
Dave Lucky
Progressive Computing