Re: [DotGNU]Dotgnu written in C#?

[j_post]

On Friday 08 August 2003 11:57 pm, James Michael DuPont wrote:
>
> 1. C# expresses the pointers and memory handling explicity, that allows
> for a newbie to make less mistakes.

The most serious errors in programming are architectural, not errors in 
implementation. That's why mistakes made early on in the design stage are the 
most costly. Newbies *and* old-timers make mistakes--they just tend to be 
different kinds of mistakes. IMHO, languages that "protect" an incompetent or 
inexperienced programmer are good for teaching, but not for production work.

"Training wheels are for kids, to prevent accidents. They have no place in 
professional software engineering" -- Donald Killen, creator of the Greenleaf 
Functions. [Born to Code in C, Herbert Schildt, Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1989, 
page 300]

> 2. A C program transformed partially into a C# programs

I think a C to C# translator is a very good idea, but not for the same 
reasons as you or DrD do. I wish I had time to write one. It would be a lot 
of fun to do, but I don't think it's necessary.
>
> > Results matter, all else is fluff.
> Yes. I know that you have not seem much from me on dotgnu,

That was not a personal comment and I was not criticizing your contributions 
in any way (my own contributions to pnet are *very* minor). The point is that 
working code is the bottom line; grand plans not brought to fruition are 
meaningless.
>
> My point is that richard  calling this idea the stupidist he has ever
> heard is showing his lack of industry experience.

I think it shows nothing other than his opinion, with which I partially agree.

> The industry is full of tools for code revererse engineering

I know, I've written some of them ;-)

Jeff