Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C)

rfg@monkeys.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
10 Mar 1996 00:58:59 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[15 earlier articles]
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-03-03)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) jens.hansson@mailbox.swipnet.se (1996-03-06)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) jens.hansson@mailbox.swipnet.se (1996-03-08)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) rfg@monkeys.com (1996-03-10)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) jan@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (1996-03-11)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) (1996-03-12)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) platon!adrian@uunet.uu.net (1996-03-25)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: rfg@monkeys.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 10 Mar 1996 00:58:59 -0500
Organization: Infinite Monkeys & Co.
References: 96-02-234 96-02-308 96-02-326 96-03-018
Keywords: standards, C

Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:
>In this and similar matters, there is a school of thought which claims
>that only experts should get involved, that if you aren't up to being
>an expert, you should consult one rather than trying to solve your
>problem yourself. While there is some merit in this view, it also
>ignores reality: experts are in short supply, and many people need to
>get results without having the time to become experts or the money to
>consult existing experts, even if this does mean some risk of
>mistakes.
>
>Languages whose definitions are accessible only to experts are likely
>to remain the obscure playthings of tiny communities of experts.


I think that Henry is confusing the standardized _specification_ of a
language (most often used by compiler writers and language lawyers)
from _tutorials_ on that language (intended for use by mere mortals).


I see no reason why anyone should think of the standardized specification
of a language as a tutorial... and indeed, my own past readings of the C
and C++ standard lead me to the conclusion that these documents would be
considered as awful failures if viewed as tutorials.
--


-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, CA ---- E-mail: rfg@monkeys.com --
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.