[TUHS] : C dialects
Luther Johnson
luther at makerlisp.com
Wed Mar 15 06:01:31 AEST 2023
I take your points. C gives a lot of freedom, but all things are not
possible. I think what comes to mind for me is when I see the idea of
trying to limit solutions to use only certain certain "design patterns",
I usually would go in the direction of more freedom and less rules.
On 03/14/2023 12:48 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:24 PM Luther Johnson <luther at makerlisp.com
> <mailto:luther at makerlisp.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm talking more about where the intent is to invest languages
> with more "safety", "good practices", to bake certain preferences
> into language features, so that writers no longer recognize these
> as engineering choices, and the language as a means of expression
> of any choice we might make, but that the language has built-in
> "the right way" to do things, and if the program compiles and runs
> at all, then it must be safe and working in certain respects.
>
>
> ORLY? Do you reject C, then, because it does not support
> self-modifying code or the ability to jump into the middle of a
> procedure without going through the prologue? These are baked-in
> preferences, and if a C program compiles at all, you can be sure that
> it does neither of these things, even if it would benefit your program
> greatly if they were available.
>
> Some people would say that's exactly what the new dialects bring
> us, but I see too much artificial orthodoxy invented last week,
> and too many declarations of the "one true way", in many of the
> most recent languages, for my taste.
>
>
> Since you agree that it is a matter of taste, there can of course be
> no disputing it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20230314/610edb9f/attachment.htm>
More information about the TUHS
mailing list