Quality programming in c -- a rarity?

[DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076]

I think that the second quote below may indicate where the bad
"Joe-Code" that the people saw came from...

Message 1:

>	One argument against C that I have heard A LOT is that it isn't
>structured or that it's hard to program readable code in C.  This is a
>bunch of B*LL.  The fact is that who-ever said that either does not
>or has not programmed in C, or saw a bunch of Joe-Code by some-one-else
>who wasn't a very good programmer.
>
>Path: decwrl!ucbvax!dillon

Message 2:

><MILD FLAME slightly relevant to subject>
>I am appalled at the consistently low quality of most of the UNIX
>utility source code.  Functions that run for pages and pages, few
>comments, many traps like the one above just waiting for someone
>to add a line of code, lint output that is longer than the source
>code itself, etc, etc, etc.  There may be some neat algorithms
>buried in there somewhere but I am tired of wading through the
>slop looking for them.  If AT&T doesn't want to take the time to
>clean them up why don't they commission someone to do it for them?
><FLAME OFF>
>
>-Fred
>Path: decwrl!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!unisoft!fnf

In other words, if those who write Unix utilities, surely the
top level of C hackers, routinely write bad code -- maybe some sort
of restrictions in the language are necessary to help people?

Now, personally I haven't seen the insides of any unix stuff, not
having a source license and all that.  But the opinion expressed in
the second message has been repeated MANY times on the net over the
past year, and I've never seen it challenged with regard to unix code
taken as a whole.

		-- David Dyer-Bennet
		-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb