Comments vs. Comparison

[Richard Harter]

In article <12187 at brl-adm.ARPA> bilbo.dana at SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Dana Myers) writes:
>
>Richard Harter <g-rh at cca.CCA.COM> writes on Date: 8 Mar 88 08:40:37 GMT:

>>>Please don't design D until you understand C.

>>Er, Dave, may I suggest it is inadvisable to make remarks such as
>>"Please don't design D until you understand C".  
	Sundry tasteless self advertisement deleted.
>
>  C'mon! Let me restate Dave's comment - "Please don't design a successor
>to C until you understand C". I think Dave's comment is perfectly advisable.
>To design a purported descendant of a given language, one must first have
>a complete understanding of what the ancestor language is. A working knowledge
>of a language is far different than a complete comprehension of a language.

	In a general way, I have to agree; in this specific case Dave simply
didn't catch what the issue was, as should have been clear from the rest of
the article.  As a general principle, it is not wise to tell people that
they don't know what they are talking about (a period should go here) unless
you do know what you are talking about, what they are talking about, and
whether they really don't what they are talking about.  It tends to be
embarassing.  [I will take it kindly if people will make a point of
not making snide comments about practicing what you preach :-).]

	I am not sure I know what you mean by "a working knowlege" and
by "a complete comprehension", so I don't know whether I can agree with
you.  If you mean by a working knowledge, "I can write programs in language
X just like I wrote them in language Y", then I agree.  If you mean by
"complete comprehension" know all the constructs and rules of the language,
and be able to use them in practice, if necessary, I suppose I would also
agree, with some reservations.  Or does "complete comprehension" include
knowing all variants, all machine dependencies, and all useful idioms?
What are you talking about?

	In any case, the point in question was not the general question
of language design -- it was the discussion of a particular feature of
the language.  The relevant comments are [a] the feature you want exists
[b] the feature you want doesnt exist but isnt needed, [c] the feature
doesn't exist and shouldn't, and [d] other.  A knowledge of the general
principles of the language (and of programming, and of other languages)
are relevant for [c].

-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.