a style question

[Jim Giles]

>From article <1990Oct6.231143.28186 at zoo.toronto.edu>, by henry at zoo.toronto.edu (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.
> [...]                             Your claims are contrary to observed fact.
> [...]

No, actually not.  The _only_ cases I'm aware of in which C was actually
used in a direct comparison with other languages, C has been less easy to
use.  It is _your_ claims that don't seem to have any empirical evidence
behind them.

In the _very_ early days of C, it may have compared well to the PDP-8
assembler - mostly because it way practically an upward compatible
extension of that assembler.  But, I don't know of any attempts that
religious C fanatics have made to show any advantage to the language
since then.  As I say, I'm aware of several extensive commercial codes
which have done _worse_ under C (after an expensive switch).  I don't
know of any such experiments which went in _favor_ of C.

> [...]
> 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.

I will assume you're speaking the truth (from some personal experience).
I don't know of any shops in which C fought an 'uphill battle'.  I know
of lots of places where it was mandated from above (by managers who
didn't know the problems and wouldn't have to do the coding anyway).  In
most of these cases, C was less efficient and less portable than what it
replaced.  It was also much harder to use.

In any case, this is not a technical discussion - just a religious
battle - so I'll just bow out of any further discussion on this
subject.

J. Giles