Re: why still use C?

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> 
> In comp.lang.c.moderated Eric Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Is IBM really suggesting that new financial programs be written in C?
> 
> Let me answer this with another question: Would you prefer that they
> forever keep being written in COBOL, instead?

C++?  Java?  Ada?

> I'm all for it, _as_long_as_ it doesn't interfere with existing code.

While I encourage anyone that wants to extend their own compiler with
decimal arithmetic, I am seeing, in the embedded compiler community, the
increasing resistance to follow the Standard with increasingly complex
compilers to support features not usually required by their customers. 
Apparently this resistance applies to other platforms as well.  Adding
more special purpose features makes the situation worse, IMO.

> If you view C as "portable assembler", then C should support as many
> aspects of assembler programming as remotely possible.  

There are many aspects of assembly programming that aren't supported in
a direct manner in C: carry bit and task swapping are two examples.  C
provides macros and supports function libraries.  These provide
reasonable support (through customized libraries) for most hardware
features through add-on libraries.

Does the added benefit of compiler-generated inline code for decimal
arithmetic outweigh the costs?

Thad
-- 
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]