Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (462768)	3/10/2009 8:51:53 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588048

But I wouldn't want to manage a large project using it. If for no other reason, there is always someone who doesn't really understand pointers leading to some hard to find bugs. This was always "the problem" with c; errant pointers can burn up a lot of time. There was a great book some years ago called "Writing Solid Code" by Steve Maguire at MSFT. It is clear that c burned up a lot of dollars at MSFT before they learned to manage large projects with it (assuming, of course, they ever did). But I've never quite gotten over the c language. It was, at the time, a more or less "perfect" language. The sheer simplicity of it was so attractive to me. When I first started writing c, the flexibility was staggering to me. That flexibility is, of course, part of what your valid complaint is about. I just had so much for respect for what was coming out of Bell Labs at the time. I really liked RSTS/E on the PDP-11. But about that time, I started working with UNIX and felt like I had discovered an entirely new world. Today, working with Windows, I still frequently find myself asking, "Why in hell didn't they just grab that from Unix?". I mean, would it have been so tough to have a visual SED or AWK or GREP as part of Windows?