"Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 9/23/07, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> David Brown <git@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 04:09:51AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: >> >>On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: >> >>> I'd say being forced to be explicit is a good thing here, so that the >> >>> programmer at least has some sort of good understanding of what is >> >>> going on, and chances are that if he doesn't really know, things just >> >>> won't work out (quite unlike a lot of other languages where this >> >>> programmer might actually end up with something half-assed that >> >>> "mostly" works). >> >>> For some reason it seems to me a lot harder to find bad programmers >> >>> surviving using C than a lot of the other languages. >> >> > > Well, according to your reasoning Who is "you"? You are replying to a post of mine, yet commenting on Alex. > assembly should be the gotha of elite programmers, only very > disciplined and meticulous programmers survive, much more then in C. I am neither disciplined nor meticulous, yet have designed and programmed applications and complete systems in assembly language. Programmers can easily survive assembly language without being disciplined or meticulous. Their projects can't: they get tied to the programmers. Porting an assembly language application to a different processor might be easier than porting it to another programmer. > Is this a good way to measure a language? It is a good way to measure programmers, at least concerning some interesting metrics. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
