Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6601 comp.sources.wanted:15569 alt.sources.d:1557 alt.sources.wanted:1003 news.groups:28394
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!kd4nc!n4hgf!wht
From: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.sources.wanted,alt.sources.d,alt.sources.wanted,news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sources.reviewed -> comp.sources.posix
Message-ID: <349@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US>
Date: 4 Mar 91 07:56:24 GMT
References: <1991Mar2.194702.18667@tridom.uucp> <1991Mar3.051242.5879@twinsun.com>
Reply-To: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker)
Followup-To: comp.sources.d
Organization: Amateur Radio Station N4HGF
Lines: 104

In article <1991Mar3.051242.5879@twinsun.com> eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes:
>wht (Warren Tucker) writes:
>>	UNIX C and shell scripts, VMS C and shell scripts, Perl
>>	scripts, awk scripts, MSDOS C, assembler and Pascal, X11...

>Posix excludes little of what you mention; it's a broad umbrella, or
>soon will be. 

Talk to me when it survives the test of time (i.e., its
proponents have finished meeting, proposing, coffee drinking, and
ArkB-ing and have actually implemented something).  In the early
80's, some swore wemalltalk hackers by now.  That
umbrella is still rather leaky.

>Will comp.sources.reviewed publish programs that don't conform to Posix
>but could easily be made to?  I hope not -- it'd mean the reviewers
>weren't doing their job.

POSIX is certainly not part of the agenda of most of my work, nor
is it likely to be for a long time.  If we write a program that
can be POSIX-compatible, we should.  But I won't use
tcsendbreak() instead of ioctl(fd,{TCSBRK,TIOCSBRK},0) when most
of real cyberspace (dev sys, headers, libraries) hasn't heard of
the Newspeak yet. 

Now, if somebody wants to claim a source is POSIX compliant:
Hi Ho.  But to say reviewers must or should enforce POSIX is no
more sensible than requiring compliance with the Chicago Manual
of Style.  Both of these specifications are good ideas -- in
their places.  No, too much useful stuff would be excluded.

I did read your phrase 'easily be made to' and agree.  But the
response I made was to a proposal to name the new group
'comp.sources.posix' in lieu of 'comp.sources.reviewed'.

Ever read _Life on the Mississippi_?  Compare 'POSIX' with
'association men'.  They will eventually rule simply because they
stick together, but the River we swim (innovate) in will become
more like molasses.  (However, I assert that POSIX Perl will
remain forever an oxymoron.  If it ever comes to exist, the world
will suddenly disappear in a poof of code inspection reviews.  ;-> ).
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Tucker, TuckerWare     emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US
"An ANSI C elephant: just like the real one, but the position, shape and
length of the trunk and tail are left to the vendor's discretion." -- me