Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!decwrl!sun!guy From: guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Domains Message-ID: <7182@sun.uucp> Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 18:07:06 EDT Article-I.D.: sun.7182 Posted: Thu Sep 11 18:07:06 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 01:57:40 EDT References: <895@gilbbs.UUCP> <522@meccts.UUCP> <901@gilbbs.UUCP> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 61 > *HOWEVER*: the use of long identifiers (in both C code AND preprocessor > code), and other relatively recent additions to C makes it EXTREMELY > difficult for many of us to actually USE that software. Does "smail" use long identifiers not unique in the first 7 characters? If not, no problem. If so, you *can* get the source to "smail", and fix it. Admittedly, this isn't optimal, but it doesn't leave you totally out in the cold. If you *do* have to fix it, and do so, why not send it back to the authors so that future versions will work on such machines? > The new mailers make heavy use of neat goodies like enumerated data > types, which many of us pcc based users can't deal with. PCC-based compilers have no problems with enumerated data types. They were added around 1979, and were present in the Ritchie C compiler distributed with V7. The document "A Tour Through the Portable C Compiler" indicates that the PCC distributed with V7 also had enumerated data types. Perhaps you have a *very* old compiler, in which case you have my sympathy, but it's not clear that writing "smail" to work with compilers *that* old doesn't go past the point of diminishing returns. I know of only one compiler that claimed to be V7-vintage that didn't support them, and it's long gone. > Which puts us right back where we were, doesn't it: if you're not > wealthy enough to have the latest and greatest, screw you! No, it doesn't. At least in the case of "enum"s, you hardly need the "latest and greatest". If it uses long identifiers not unique in the first 7 characters, I can understand why they decided to do this, but I think it was probably the wrong thing to do, since compilers that don't support them are still present on a lot of machines and are likely to remain on those machines (PDP-11, UNIX PC, etc.) for quite a while. > Furthermore, I have received several letters with much the same flavor as > this. What is it with UNIX people, does the software interfere with your > ability to treat someone who isn't as knowledgable with a little dignity > and respect? No, but uninformed flames *do* tend to interfere with that ability. If somebody who isn't knowledgable says "XXX is stupid" without knowing some of the reasons why XXX was done, and why *not* doing XXX might have been worse, patience tends to evaporate. > It is this sort of "maintain the mystery" attitude among UNIX types which > is primarily responsible for the difficulty UNIX is having breaking into the > popular computing market. Have you done research to support this claim? I suspect it has more to do with: 1) the high cost of UNIX systems relative to IBM PCs and the like 2) the relative lack of application software for UNIX 3) the fact that few, if any, UNIX machines are also IBM PC compatible machines As I said, I think a little less flaming is in order in this case. -- Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com (or guy@sun.arpa)