[Info-vax] Why so much Unix envy?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <amGNv.59247$DX.49597 at fx06.iad>,
	Shark8 <OneWingedShark at gmail.com> writes:
> On 03-Sep-14 07:06, bill at server3.cs.scranton.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> In article <y%oNv.72081$JH1.18826 at fx08.iad>,
>> 	Shark8 <OneWingedShark at gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 02-Sep-14 07:27, bill at server3.cs.scranton.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>>>> You can do wonders with cleaning up C code now by looking at the warnings
>>>> and fixing what they warn you about.  Instead, most programmers just turn
>>>> off all the warnings to get a "clean" compile.
>>>
>>> Which means that the warnings are, generally, useless.
>>
>> Why would that mean the warnings are useless?
> 
> Because they're being ignored.

So then, using this analogy, because one guy runs red lights they are
useless and we should just get rid of them, right?  Hint: It isn't the
warning that are useless, it's the programmers.

> 
>> The warnings carry meaning.
> 
> And how is that meaning of *any* value if they "turn off all the 
> warnings to get a 'clean' compile"?

Being ignored by the programmer does not reduce the value of the
warnings, it just shows what an incompetent idiot a lot of so-called
programmers are.

> 
>> It is the useless programmer who chooses to ignore them rather than fix
>> what they are warning about.  Or are you arguing that the option to turn
>> them off should be removed from the compiler?
> 
> IMO, many things that are warnings [in C] ought to be errors -- but then 
> C has more of a "let anything compile" philosophy than many other languages.

Hogwash.  Now we are blaming the tool again for the incompetence of the
workman.  Most Pascal compilers will let you turn off things like Range
Checking and Bounds Checking.  Is that a flaw in the language?

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>