Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git*
- From
David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
- Date
- Sep 23, 2007, 09:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <856421ra3l.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
- In-Reply-To
- <e5bfff550709230229t79004ce2j5ce8c2ae7744a7f2@mail.gmail.com>
"Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@gmail.com> writes:
Show 16 quoted lines
> On 9/23/07, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote: >> David Brown <git@davidb.org> writes: >> >> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 04:09:51AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: >> >>On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: >> >>> I'd say being forced to be explicit is a good thing here, so that the >> >>> programmer at least has some sort of good understanding of what is >> >>> going on, and chances are that if he doesn't really know, things just >> >>> won't work out (quite unlike a lot of other languages where this >> >>> programmer might actually end up with something half-assed that >> >>> "mostly" works). >> >>> For some reason it seems to me a lot harder to find bad programmers >> >>> surviving using C than a lot of the other languages. >> >> > > Well, according to your reasoning
Who is "you"? You are replying to a post of mine, yet commenting on Alex.
> assembly should be the gotha of elite programmers, only very > disciplined and meticulous programmers survive, much more then in C.
I am neither disciplined nor meticulous, yet have designed and programmed applications and complete systems in assembly language. Programmers can easily survive assembly language without being disciplined or meticulous. Their projects can't: they get tied to the programmers. Porting an assembly language application to a different processor might be easier than porting it to another programmer.
> Is this a good way to measure a language?
It is a good way to measure programmers, at least concerning some interesting metrics.
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum