a style question

[Henry Spencer]

In article <65019 at lanl.gov> jlg at lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>... The C language is so full of pitfalls that it usually takes
>as long to get a working version of _any_ algorithm written in C as it
>does to write it in assembly.

Only for people who think in Fortran.

In case you didn't notice, Jim, portability was a fortuitous afterthought
in C.  Its original motive was easier programming than assembler.  It
succeeded at that; it wiped out assembler within Unix not due to concerns
about portability -- that was still far in the future -- but simply because
it was easier to work with.  This is with experienced programmers, mind you;
it is not an easy language for novices (even those with plenty of experience
programming in other languages).  Your claims are contrary to observed fact.
C succeeded by being superior, not by being portable or by official decree;
in many shops it had an uphill battle to displace languages which were
supposedly more efficient, more portable, or more standard.
-- 
Imagine life with OS/360 the standard  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
operating system.  Now think about X.  |  henry at zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry