Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: new Byte on C
Message-ID: <3137@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Aug-83 23:44:02 EDT
Article-I.D.:    utzoo.3137
Posted: Sat Aug  6 23:44:02 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Aug-83 23:44:02 EDT
References: floyd.1874, <223@idis.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 23

Claiming that the definition of C does not include things like "printf"
is both theoretically defensible and thoroughly silly.  Sure, you can
define a C without such things -- but it's useless.  No simple string
operations, no i/o, etc...  In most other languages, these things ARE
part of the basic language, and rightfully so.  Thanks to Dennis
Ritchie's abilities as a language designer (plus some good luck in
places), these things can be defined as (more or less...) ordinary
C functions, and hence don't need to be built into the very language.
But that doesn't make them any less necessary.  These things are no
more -- and NO LESS -- wired into the basic definition of C than, say,
the "ls" program is wired into the basic definition of Unix.   In theory,
it's a side issue; practically, the functionality is necessary, and it's
silly to add gratuitous differences in the way that functionality is
invoked.  Even Whitesmiths has (I'm told) recently toed the line by
offering an i/o library with the standard names.

In short, if your programs won't compile, then you really don't care
about nit-picking distinctions between "standard C" and "standard C
with the standard C library".  For most practical purposes, the library
is part of the language.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry