C, and what it is for

[Jeff Carroll 544-6349]

In article <525 at accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>
accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu!kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!
rob at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Rob Carriere) writes:
>In article <4203 at adobe.COM> burgett at steel.UUCP (Michael Burgett) writes:
>> [ C is not a numerical language, fortran is, so ]
>>just face it, to program effectively
>>you just might have to learn more than one language.... (shock! disbelief!!)
> 
>And having done so, you might then find that there is a language that
>does almost everything you want, could do everything you want with
>*only small changes*, and is already better than anything else around.
>Can you blame people for then trying to get these minor changes done?
>I am not talking about anything like a PL/1 syndrome, because I like C
>for its simplicity, and I'd much rather do some work than have the
>language bloated, but there are a couple of minor changes that would
>greatly improve the utility of C in the numerical field.
> 
>Rob Carriere
>Face it, C is just to damn *_GOOD_* for you systems guys to keep it
>all to yourselves... :-)

	In the beginning, scientists were the only people who had computers,
and the only people who programmed them. Then they had languages like FORTRAN
and ALGOL; admittedly crude, but that was at least in part because the
scientists/programmers had other, more important applications to worry about
- their applications.

	Then people started using computers for financial applications,
and there were languages like COBOL. Those were crude too, but that was
also because the people inventing the tools had their application in mind,
and because the art of programming a computer was still in its infancy.

	As that art grew more and more sophisticated, people started to
devote more and more time and energy to it, and then came people who spent
ALL their time doing it: the computer scientists. Soon there were university
programs in computer science, and then sub-specialties within computer science.

	Which brings us to the systems programmer. The systems programmer
is a specialist in making a sophisticated machine tractable to users. Systems
programmers gave us C, and many of us are grateful to them for it.

	But now people like Mr. Burgett are making mutiny on the ship of
computation. Having forgotten that the operating system exists for the benefit
of the user, they operate under the illusion that operating systems, systems
programming, and the tools of the systems craft exist for their own sake,
and they are telling us users to butt out, as if we were trespassing on
someone else's property.

	Someday, maybe we will have concert halls and arenas where people
will go to watch and applaud performances by systems programmers, which
might be funded by the Ford Foundation, or the National Endowment for the
Humanities. Until then, though, we all have work to do, and systems programmers
might be well advised to swallow their pride and give their customers what
they want.

					Jeff Carroll
					Electromagnetics Staff
					Boeing Advanced Systems
					Box 3707, MS 4C-01
					Seattle 98124

					(206)544-6349

					carroll%seatac at boeing.com
					8524622 at uwav1.bitnet