> Linear sequences of steps processing data arrayed in some linear fashion or others is what computers do
No, it's what some computers do. It's almost certainly not what the computer you are using currently does. It's quite possible it's not what any computer you've ever used does.
> So you would rather ...
I'm not expressing a preference. If you think I was, you've misunderstood my comment. I'm making observations, not judgements. I'm not anti-C, it's a fine language for many things; however I do think that the articles author is not being as even-handed as he claims when it comes to some of the short-comings of C.
> Your problem is nomenclature?
Again, I'm not making a judgement. C exists in a paradigm where writing
x = 3
x = 4
makes sense. In other paradigms it would be logically inconsistent.
>>there is random access storage of information (with constant time access and update)
>Again, that's just how "the world" works.
That's absolutely not how "the world" works. Again, you've probably never even used a computer where it was true.
> dissing C is just shitting where you eat. The only reasons I can imagine for it are jealousy or ignorance.
I don't think I've made any statement anywhere in this discussion that's "dissing C".
How does this computer right here not consist of a whole lof of linear sequenceS?(notice the plural btw? and the fact that "linear" does say nothing about "serial" vs "parallel", either?) How is data not arrayed linearly? Please elaborate, "because I said so" is not enough.
No, it's what some computers do. It's almost certainly not what the computer you are using currently does. It's quite possible it's not what any computer you've ever used does.
> So you would rather ...
I'm not expressing a preference. If you think I was, you've misunderstood my comment. I'm making observations, not judgements. I'm not anti-C, it's a fine language for many things; however I do think that the articles author is not being as even-handed as he claims when it comes to some of the short-comings of C.
> Your problem is nomenclature?
Again, I'm not making a judgement. C exists in a paradigm where writing
makes sense. In other paradigms it would be logically inconsistent.>>there is random access storage of information (with constant time access and update)
>Again, that's just how "the world" works.
That's absolutely not how "the world" works. Again, you've probably never even used a computer where it was true.
> dissing C is just shitting where you eat. The only reasons I can imagine for it are jealousy or ignorance.
I don't think I've made any statement anywhere in this discussion that's "dissing C".