Subject: Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git*

From: David Kastrup <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:42:54 +0200

"Marco Costalba" <[email-masked]> writes:

> On 9/23/07, David Kastrup <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> David Brown <[email-masked]> 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