From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: C (Was: [9fans] same functions everywhere)
In-Reply-To: <3EB8E817.4090609@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0305070906010.10670-100000@athena>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed,  7 May 2003 10:17:15 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a25d3d3a-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> "Buffer overruns" are just the manifestation of bad programming,
> not a weakness in the language, itself. Every language has its

Well, yes, but even the most seasoned programmers
*can* make mistakes.  I believe the issue at hand
is that having this check (and others) a part of
the language permits quick bug discovery and as
a result faster development cycles, in addition
to safer code.

Modifying C to add run-time functionality not
specified by the programmer seems like a step
away from the original intent of the language.
IMHO it should be left as a portable assembly
language.  I view C as a solid base for developing
new languages as it's devilishly fun to write.
Limbo is a wonderful example of how extending
the core of C for something new can be
fruitful.

While I've not read it, I'm told the commentary
on the c99 standard is about 1k pages long.  I
belive this qualifies as sufficiently bloated.

Sam