== vs =

[Chip Salzenberg]

[This is _not_ a flame, but it is a response to one.]

In article <938 at micomvax.UUCP> ray at micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) flames:
> [ In response to a continuing discussion by myself and others on the
>   = vs == question ]
>In article <191 at ateng.UUCP> chip at ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Enough, already!  Before continuing to flame pointlessly about the design
>>of a well-established language like C in an attempt to make it "safe",
>
>Who has decided it is pointless?  Only those who disagee that there is a
>problem?
>
>Well-established?  I thought the whole point of the current debates was that
>the language was just about to be poured into the ANSI jello mold, but the
>flavour nuances had not yet quite been chosen.

Sure; but we've long ago agreed to use Jello, not pudding.  If you change
the usage of = and ==, you don't have C any more.  You have a new language.

>>And while you're at it, try this (inexact) quote from Peter Norton
>[obviously a major sage of the software industry (:-)]:
>>	"C is an industrial-strength language.  What some people seem
>>	to forget is that `industrial-strength' also means `not safe
>>	for pets or small children'."
>
>What is being implied here?  That no attempt should be made to improve those
>parts of the langauge which are error prone?  Should we not improve the
>quality of our hard hats just because we are in an "industrial environment".

If you were to change = and ==, you would break almost every C program in
existence.  A compiler modified to reflect such a change would be as useful
for compiling C programs as a Fortran compiler!

An example:  I like C++, and I think that its features enhance software
reliability; but I'm not about to call it "C 88".  It's a distinct
language.  C with =/== changed would also be a distinct language.

>>Or novice programmers, for that matter.
>
>Ah!  Now I see.  We all have to pass a "Salzenberg Test" to be allowed to
>program in 'C'.

I was not commenting on the skill of those who have posted here.  I was
disagreeing with the often-espoused idea that language features that make
errors possible must be changed, or else we are partially responsible for
the errors committed by novice programmers.

I believe that there is no such thing as a fool-proof language.  If you
want a safe language, invent one.  When you're done, though, don't call it
"C".  That name is taken.