4 ms·
Your analogy suggests that "safer languages" are like crappier versions of C. I don't think that assertion is well supported.
by recursive 13y ago
Your analogy suggests that "safer languages" are like crappier versions of C. I don't think that assertion is well supported.
- peterwwillis 13y agoI think I qualified my analogy correctly. For general purpose, high-performance efficiency, you can't beat a knife. However, there are tons of specific applications where a tool other than a knife is preferred. That's the idea behind the phrase "the right tool for the job". I wouldn't say a hatchet or a machete is a "crappier version" of a knife. Surely a hatchet is much better suited for chopping down a tree, for example. On the other hand, a knife would be very inefficient at the job, even if it could get the job done eventually. However, a hatchet is arguably less safe than a knife for many kinds of jobs, and a knife for hatchet-jobs, etc. So really I guess my point was the idea of a "safer" language is dumb, because not every tool is "safe" for every job, and not every job is suitable for a "safe" tool.