[726] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next last

Re: assignment operator

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thu Mar 23 14:58:00 1995 )

From: Alex Stewart <riche@crl.com>
To: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Cc: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199503110454.UAA23074@netcom20.netcom.com> from "Jeff Kesselman" at Mar 10, 95 08:54:07 pm

[Well, I had kinda let my Cold* reading slide for a while, but reading through
the back posts I have to respond to a couple of things said here.. Sorry if
this starts up old wars again, but..]

> Good is irrelevent.

Heh.. I'll have to remember this quote (on a side note, I take it this is the
same approach you take to spelling? :)..

> >> Its not a question of "because theya re there."  It a very practical
> >> consideration. C, good or bad, has become a defacto standard.
> >
> >Umm, excuse me, but if you'd look at what you're saying you might notice that
> >the term "de facto standard" means _PRECISELY_ "because it's there".  sheesh.
> Not because they ae there. Because IT is there. Stop picking on words and
> read the sentance ::sheesh::

Well, what can I say but "Stop picking on words and read the sentence"..  De
facto standard = "because it (C) is there".  Stupid mistakes C made ARE there
because C IS there.  Do I have to spell out every minute logical inference I
make?  ::sheesh::

> >As I said, stupidity shouldn't be blindly copied in the name of so-called
> >"standards",
> I disagree.  Standards are NEVER optimal, becaus ethey are by definition
> compromises. Standard are however a hgood thing for comprehension, or don't
> you agree with that?

Oh, certainly, but I don't agree that this level of nitpicking on standards
adherence represents a significant comprehension problem, and I do think that
this level of blindly following all the stupid mistakes of the past represents
a significant (and unnecessary) risk of flawed programming.  Your argument is
rather along the lines of "don't give kids condoms because it's better that
they die of AIDS than (heaven forfend) they should actually do something we
don't approve of (sex) with the condoms we provide".. Not as severe, mind you,
but the same basic little-things-are-more-important-than-big-things mentality.

Really, by your arguments so far, we should all still be using FORTRAN, or
maybe actually assembler.. they were standards first, you know.. We shouldn't
change working standards just because someone comes up with some new thing like
C that works better.. Standards are standards, and should be adhered to for
ever and ever.  Amen.

> Actually your mention of the fact that you never learned to avoid this C
> pitfall in your earlier post explains a great deal.

Very interesting.. do you actually read the messages I send or use the Psychic
Friends Network instead?  I never said that.  I said that I still have problems
with it (due to such things as, oh, typos, for example.. by the look of your
typing I'd venture that this concept isn't THAT foreign to you), not that I
hadn't learned the difference.  This pathetic attempt to insult my programming
ability really isn't worthy, and is completely irrelevant.  You're the one
who's supposedly arguing in favor of making this language easy to learn for
people who aren't already master programmers, and now you're saying that if
someone has problems with one of the most common sources for bugs in C code,
which you yourself are arguing in favor of perpetuating, that they're not worth
talking to?  sheesh.. get your position straight.

> Nope, I am not, thank you.   I will repost this, though peopel will be
> confused by the sudden thread and joinging in the middle. I wish you had
> said so soone. I hATE mailing lists.  Conferences make MUCH more sense...

I didn't say so sooner because I only then realized, actually..

     Alex Stewart - riche@crl.com - Richelieu @ Diversity University MOO
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams" -- Willy Wonka