Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: "If it has a bug, it isn't 'C'" Message-ID: <631@dg_rtp.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 13:35:19 EDT Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.631 Posted: Fri Oct 10 13:35:19 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 21:31:12 EDT References: <1215@bunker.UUCP> <608@opus.nbires.UUCP> Lines: 33 Summary: *denial* of a bug is the reason to assert "then it isn't C" > rcd@nbires.UUCP (Dick Dunn) >> ? >>> ? >>> Then it isn't a C compiler... >> This is rapidly becoming one of my pet peeves. [peeves do *NOT* make good pets! :-)] > Gary's complaint is valid when people are talking about things which turn > out to be bugs - meaning something along the lines of "behavior which the > implementors agree is incorrect and should be fixed." In addition to the feeping creaturism pointed out by Dick Dunn, I note that most often Guy (and others) direct the put-down of "Then it's not a C compiler" to folks who are attempting to claim that since their compiler does X, then X is a feature of the C language. It is a pithy way of pointing out that X is a bug, not a feature. The point is that this was most often a response to somebody *denying* that a blatant bug was in fact a bug. Guy (and others) were willing to go along with this, saying in effect "OKfine, it's not a bug. But if it isn't a bug in your compiler *THEN* your compiler (really and truely) is *NOT* a C compiler". I might be persuaded that this particular putdown is somewhat overused of late, and some folks may use it inappropriately. But a guru who uses this putdown inappropriately just isn't a *C* guru! :-) -- The most deadly thing in software is the concept... that you are going to specify what you are going to do, and then do it. --- Ross in Software Engineering -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw