Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <14094@lanl.gov>
Date: 19 Oct 89 23:06:11 GMT
References: <11337@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 11

From article <11337@smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn):
> [...]
> The looseness in the C language definition is deliberate,
> because C was designed for systems programming,

It seems to me that systems programming is exactly the context
where "looseness" is least tolerable.  A system failure may
effect hundreds (even thousands) of users.  The cost in user
time as well as information may be enormous.  Systems programming
is the one context in which I would insist upon the _most_
unambiguously designed language available.