Was Einstein wrong after all? (was: Re: ambiguous ?)

[6600pete at ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu]

Sorry to post this as a follow-up to roughly the wrong person, but I
missed Giles' message the first time round and I couldn't resist.

In article <182 at isgtec.UUCP> robert at isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes:
> In article <14116 at lanl.gov> jlg at lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>>Or is it
>>better to dissuade as many as possible from pusuing this 18 year old
>>dead-end of a programming language?

Giles said THIS? Isn't he the one who keeps espousing FORTRAN as the
better-designed language? If so, this comment is comedic at best. 18
years old? C is a BABY! Dead-end? Yeah, and Fortran's used exclusively
by all the up-and-coming hacks to write the new OS's and the new
windowing environments. C's had a wider distribution than Fortran in
half the time. Why call it a dead-end, then?
--
  | GurgleKat (Pete Gontier), pete at cavevax.ucsb.edu
  | .UUCP reply addresses bounce; try another path.
  | ...if you'd gone to Dartmouth, you'd not have had to take the math.