C, and what it is for

[Michael Burgett]

In article <8809092242.AA20696 at BOEING.COM> carroll%seatac at BOEING.COM 
(Jeff Carroll 544-6349) writes:
|	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.

and then there was light....

|	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.
	     ^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm, all the lore I've read, and been told tells of C evolving as a tool
used for systems programming, that being what it was intended and designed to
do (and does quite wonderfully I might add...)

|	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.

Yes they do justify their own existence, Un*x would not have been ported to so
many platforms, nor be as popular as it is today if it had not been written in
C.  Do you want to change yacc and lex all around too since you seem to feel 
that it's wrong to have tools dedicated to doing one job well instead of 
many mediorce?

|	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.

Flames to you too buddy.

My original posting (albeit, I do tend to have a rather large sarcastic streak)
was intended to point out that "fixing" C at expense of what it was intended to
do is a mistake and should be avoided, look to other languages that are good
at specific things, and use them at what they are best designed for.  'Tis a
poor programmer indeed that only has one tool in his toolbox.  The role of
ANSI is not to extend and enhance, but to standardize current practice, and you
don't do that by inventing things that don't currently exist in the language.
As far as I'm concerned, "fixing" a working compiler, used by as many people as
C, should be done just as one would attempt to pet a lion -- very carefully.

	--Mike Burgett

	adobe!burgett at decwrl.dec.com

	"Squid and red bean stew served daily..."


"Obviously, *noone* share my opinions, so why should my employer?" :')