spinoza1111 wrote:

> Read this excellent article: Software Fault Prevention by Language
> Choice: Why C is Not My Favorite Language, Richard Fateman. Fateman is
> on the faculty of the rather C-centric Univ of California at Berkeley.
> http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/software.pdf.

I thought he was refering to this one:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872

a far more entertaining read (not to be taken seriously I though).

(I finally managed to get through the Fateman paper without falling
asleep)

--
Bartc

"Bart" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>
>> Read this excellent article: Software Fault Prevention by Language
>> Choice: Why C is Not My Favorite Language, Richard Fateman. Fateman is
>> on the faculty of the rather C-centric Univ of California at Berkeley.
>> http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/software.pdf.
>
> I thought he was refering to this one:
>
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872
>
> a far more entertaining read (not to be taken seriously I though).
>
> (I finally managed to get through the Fateman paper without falling
> asleep)
>
Two attacks on C. One compares C with Lisp, and never seems to realise that 
he is comparing apples and oranges. C is a layer of abstraction over an 
assembler, Lisp is a specification of logic.
For a long time Lisp was too slow to use for most purposes, but that 
consideration doesn't apply nearly as strongly today. However the 
processor-intensive tasks, like rasterisation, signal processing, matrix 
transforms, big sorts, and the like will always have to be specified in a 
language close to the machine, so there will be a need for C or something 
similar to it.

On 20 Sep, 21:19, "Malcolm McLean" <regniz...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Bart" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > spinoza1111 wrote:
>
> >> Read this excellent article: Software Fault Prevention by Language
> >> Choice: Why C is Not My Favorite Language, Richard Fateman. Fateman is
> >> on the faculty of the rather C-centric Univ of California at Berkeley.
> >>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/software.pdf.
>
> > I thought he was refering to this one:
>
> >http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872
>
> > a far more entertaining read (not to be taken seriously I though).
>
> > (I finally managed to get through the Fateman paper without falling
> > asleep)
>
> Two attacks on C. One compares C with Lisp, and never seems to realise that
> he is comparing apples and oranges. C is a layer of abstraction over an
> assembler, Lisp is a specification of logic.
> For a long time Lisp was too slow to use for most purposes, but that
> consideration doesn't apply nearly as strongly today. However the
> processor-intensive tasks, like rasterisation, signal processing, matrix
> transforms, big sorts, and the like will always have to be specified in a
> language close to the machine, so there will be a need for C or something
> similar to it.

I'm expecting the first star ships to run on a mix of C and Lisp

"Malcolm McLean" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:JKWdnZjFj9PREyvXnZ2dnUVZ8l6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Bart" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>>
>>> Read this excellent article: Software Fault Prevention by Language
>>> Choice: Why C is Not My Favorite Language, Richard Fateman. Fateman is
>>> on the faculty of the rather C-centric Univ of California at Berkeley.
>>> http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/software.pdf.
>>
>> I thought he was refering to this one:
>>
>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872
>>
>> a far more entertaining read (not to be taken seriously though).
>>
>> (I finally managed to get through the Fateman paper without falling
>> asleep)
>>
> Two attacks on C.

Actually most of the user comments in my link were pro-C.

> One compares C with Lisp, and never seems to realise that he is comparing 
> apples and oranges.

That was a silly comparison. Never mind apples and oranges, I don't think 
one of them is even a fruit.

> C is a layer of abstraction over an assembler,

I keep seeing this, but C is nothing like assembler (assembly?). If anything 
it's just an abstraction over a kind of execution model that is easy to 
implement for a typical CPU.

> Lisp is a specification of logic.

I don't care what it is, so long as I don't have to use it. (I'm not 
attacking it, you just have to have the right sort of mind for it).

-- 
Bartc 

In article <dIRtm.81450$OO7.41866@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
bartc <bartc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> C is a layer of abstraction over an assembler,

I agree that that's not accurate...

>I keep seeing this, but C is nothing like assembler (assembly?). If anything 
>it's just an abstraction over a kind of execution model that is easy to 
>implement for a typical CPU.

.... but this does make C a portable and sufficiently efficient substitute
for assembler in many cases, notably the implementation of other
languages.

-- Richard
-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.