Subject: Re: Theory #51 (superior(?) programming languages) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1997/01/23 Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Mike Haertel | Here you are arguing over the definition of the problem. sigh. D. J. Bernstein introduced his wrong answer with "I proved". but he didn't. so I pointed out what a proof would have entailed. pay attention! | Your definition seems to be that the compiler must generate the overflow | checks for you, and provide an exception handling mechanism as well. | This is all very well and good, but it's not C. _precisely_! | Bernstein may have been acerbic, but note carefully he did | not call *you* stupid, just your choice of overflow | detection as an example of C's supposed deficiencies. if he had done that, it would at least have been to the point. but he didn't. he argued in terms of "machine operations", which was never the point. pay attention! #\Erik -- 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine -- a basic ingredient in quality software.