Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Sigh.  Doesn't anyone bother to read the literature?
Message-ID: <6581:Apr116:14:2891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 91 16:14:28 GMT
References: <10733@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <335:Mar3121:55:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <22188@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Organization: IR
Lines: 20

In article <22188@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> In article <335:Mar3121:55:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> 
> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >In article <10733@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM () writes:
> >> People are also attributing the qualities of current language
> >> implementations to the languages themselves;
> >It's very difficult *not* to do that, especially for languages without
> >formal standards.
> or, for those languages which have formal (or near-formal) standards that
> you have not bothered to read ...

Ah, yes, you're the type who thinks that ANSI C equals C, and that
Fortran 8X, oops I mean 9X, equals Fortran, and that Common Lisp equals
Lisp... Too bad. C in the real world is *not* the same as ANSI C. Sure,
I find ANSI C and Fortran 21XX and Common Lisp quite interesting. But
anyone who refuses to ``attribute the qualities of current language
implementations to the languages themselves''---except for Algol---is
deluding himself.

---Dan