Russ,

What, I guess, I didn't say, was that it seems to me that 'C' was created with the idea that the programmers' creativity was the main ingredient in the software generation mix. That was in the '70's, and things have changed. Today there's a dearth, not of imagination, but of application.

Today's generation doesn't require any help in being "creative" (meaning trying to avoid discipline and rigor, or any other sort of "work") but, rather, requires the imposition of some structure or other to compensate for their lack of discipline. They aren't taught to sit in their assigned seats in school, so they wander around. Consequently, the most difficult thing, according to several well-known and often quoted authors, about writing an original work, is "staying in the chair." What this really means is "doing the work." There's really no "short-cut." I doubt it's any different for programming. Of course, those who have sufficient discipline and rigor in their lives would only barely notice the difficulty.

My assertions are based on my view that ASM, and, to some extent those, "anal-retentive" HLL's like PASCAL, force the programmer to focus on form, style and structure more than 'C' does. I suppose it's a matter of perception. A "good" programmer will enforce those elements on his work regardless of the behavior of his support tools. Nonetheless, it is often helpful to have the development tool tell you that you've incremented an index once too often.

The problem with 'C', as I see it, is that 'C' allows too much freedom, at the expense of enforcing form, style, and structure.

RE