Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Types
Message-ID: <18598@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 11-May-87 22:59:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.18598
Posted: Mon May 11 22:59:03 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 14-May-87 02:24:24 EDT
References: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA> <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> <293@osupyr.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 54
Summary: Big changes are NOT needed!

> > This only solves the problem for the type "complex".  What about vectors
> > and matrices and (use your imagination)?
> 
>  What we people who can program using the power of the computer really need
> to do is convince the X3J11 committee to accept the idea that overloaded
> operators, defining of new types (not like C++), defining of operator
> symbols corresponding to operations not included in the default language,
> forcing inline, substitution of compiler-determined locations in inserted
> assembler instructions, and other versatile devices, and in general enabling
> the production of good semi-portable code is worthwhile.

Good luck.  I suspect you'll need it.

1) Why is it worthwhile to throw all this stuff into C *now*?  One
   thing to note - the more stuff you throw into ANSI C, the longer
   it'll take to see ANSI C implementations, and the longer you'll
   have to wait for all these whizzy features.

2) Why is "defining of new types" followed by "(not like C++)"?

3) Why is "defining of operator symbols corresponding to operations
   not included in the default language" worth the cost of adding
   this?  It is a relatively uncommon feature in programming
   languages, and can complicate the parsing of a language.

4) What does "enabling the production of good semi-portable code"
   mean?  What is the significance of "semi" in "semi-portable"?
   Why do features like overloading of operators "enable the
   production of good semi-portable code", as opposed to the
   production of code in general, or portable code, or whatever?

5) What does "program using the power of the computer" mean?  It
   sounds like a buzzphrase to me.  Plenty of people who don't think C
   should grow without bounds are quite capable of writing efficient
   and portable (and "semi-portable") code.

This looks more like a Christmas list than a practical proposal for
additions to C.  The purpose of a standards effort is *not* to stuff
every feature that somebody thought they needed, or at least wanted,
into the item being standardized.  (To quote Dennis Ritchie - "If you
want PL/I, you know where to find it.")  The language that has every
feature you want doesn't exist, and probably *can't* exist; there are
always tradeoffs, and some features that might seem really nice just
cost too much.

As for "Big changes are needed", well, I shall merely point out that
a LOT of software has been written in C, and is being written in C,
for a host of applications.  I see no reason to believe that this
flow of applications will diminish to a trickle shortly unless this
shopping list of features is added to the language.  (In fact, enough
features added to the language could *itself* diminish the flow of
applications, if it complicates the language or its implementations
to the point that the language is no longer a good choice for the
applications for which it is currently being used.)