News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by sureaboutthis on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:20PM (#19750336)
It's not unfortunate. If it was a bad thing, UNIX wouldn't be so widespread.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by ernst_klim on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:33PM (#19750497)
>If it was a bad thing, UNIX wouldn't be so widespread.

Strange argument. Javascript is widespread, COBOL was widespread, Windows is widespread, X86 is widespread. Widespread doesn't mean good. UNIX was a disaster, and the whole family of UNIX-like OS spent decades just for mitigate its errors and faults.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by pjmlp on Thursday April 25, 2019 @01:40PM (#19750579)
I guess we have someone here that enjoys using PHP, JavaScript and Perl.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by sureaboutthis on Thursday April 25, 2019 @03:25PM (#19751631)
As a UNIX professional programmer, no. Other than Perl, which I don't use, why would you think that?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Some Were Meant for C (2017) [pdf] by pjmlp on Friday April 26, 2019 @04:11AM (#19755609)
Same set of language design qualities and being widespead due to historical accident.
[ Parent | on HN ]