> I once needed a structure which was written to 30 named, one-dimensional arrays. It was read as a single, named, two-dimensional array. I’m told this is feasi

> I once needed a structure which was written to 30 named, one-dimensional arrays. It was read as a single, named, two-dimensional array. I’m told this is feasible in C, but I’ve never met anyone who wanted to try it. It sounds to me like what's being described here is an array of pointers to arrays. Not only is that feasible in C, it is extremely simple and common. The second argument to main() is such an array, for example. > In C, you’re more protected. But then, you also have to do things like type casting to circumvent a patronizing compiler constantly checking up on you. I don't consider it "patronizing" when a compiler warns me that casting the first few bytes of a string literal into a memory address might not be what I want. I consider that "helpful". > The biggest drawback of Forth is the Catch 22 that attends any nonconformist idea. Not many people know Forth, and people won’t usually learn something unless everyone else is already using it. The author apparently does not think much of his audience. He's basically saying that if you don't learn Forth it's because you're a conformist. > Industry experience has shown that a Forth programmer is up to ten times more productive than a C programmer. Now this is just silly. If this were really "industry experience", nobody would still be using C for anything except legacy applications.