4 ms·
> repeatedly stating "A language is a tool, not an identity." every thread about X programming language adds nothing to the conversation. You're being unnecess
by uniclaude 13y ago
> repeatedly stating "A language is a tool, not an identity." every thread about X programming language adds nothing to the conversation.
You're being unnecessarily harsh, this type of comment might have educational value for newer developers. The fact that a programming language is a tool is not understood by all of us, and I personally admit that a very similar message I read on IRC opened my eyes when I was younger.
> Would you have any problem if Dennis Ritchie identified himself as a C programmer or Matz as a Ruby programmer?
Your own example ruins your whole argument. Matz is a programmer, he invented Ruby and wrote its interpreter in C. Calling him a C programmer or a Ruby programmer makes therefore very little sense. Same goes for Dennis Ritchie and the assembly he used to create C.
- bryanlarsen 13y agoTo be pedantic: Ritchie did not write C in Assembly, he wrote it in C. Or more accurately, version N of C was written in version N-1 of C. Version 0 of C could be compiled by the B compiler. Your point still stands though: you need to be fairly competent at assembly language to write a compiler that emits machine code.
- uniclaude 13y agoEither you or the wikipedia article is wrong. >"The origin of C is closely tied to the development of the Unix operating system, originally implemented in assembly language on a PDP-7 by Ritchie and Thompson, incorporating several ideas from colleagues." It's also written that the B rewrite only came later.
- bryanlarsen 13y agoUnix was originally written in assembly language.