steve-REMOVE-THIS at cybersource.com.au
Thu Sep 9 06:02:12 CEST 2010
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:41:20 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Part of the problem is C itself.
> And yet, what are these complicated garbage collectors, that you intend
> relying on to work correctly with all their layers of tricks upon
> tricks, written in? C.
Pascal, despite the contempt it is held in by university computer science
departments, isn't quite dead, and some Pascal compilers use garbage
collectors written in Pascal. FreePascal, I believe, is one of them.
Likewise for other not-dead-yet low-level languages like Ada and Forth.
As surprising as it seems to many, C is not the only low-level language
around suitable for writing high-quality, efficient code. Just ask the
Lisp community, which is thriving. For some definition of thriving.
Admittedly C has far more attention to it than the others, so [insert
weasel words here] the best C compilers tend to produce more efficient
code than the best of the others, but Pascal, Ada and similar give you
more security than C.
I believe that when computer scientists of the future look back at the
last few decades, they will judge that on balance C did more harm than
good. Not that C is the only language that people can write buggy or
insecure code, but C does tend to give the bugs so much help... :)
More information about the Python-list