Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihlpm!leder
From: leder@ihlpm.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Types
Message-ID: <1121@ihlpm.ATT.COM>
Date: Wed, 13-May-87 14:57:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpm.1121
Posted: Wed May 13 14:57:36 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 04:50:22 EDT
References: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA> <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> <293@osupyr.UUCP> <18598@sun.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 48
Summary: things are begining to not sound like C

In article <18598@sun.uucp>, guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
> > 
> >  What we people who can program ... really need
> > to do is convince the X3J11 committee to accept the idea ...
> > the production of good semi-portable code is worthwhile.


I think that your words taken completely out of context provides more
insight that within the context that they were used.

> 1) Why is it worthwhile to throw all this stuff into C...?

If you don't like the language, why not invent a new one?  And that
is what this author procedes to do.  Why don't we have two languages:

	slim C
	
	   and
	
	fat C

With a few exceptions, the committee has done an admiral job of giving
us a very slightly overweight "slim C".

To get to "fat C" we could start with C++ and add ADA, inline FORTH,
with extensions for COBOL and PASCAL, and maybe just a sprinkling of
anything else someone can think of.  In fact the compiler should be
self-modifyable and extenable just in case we left anything out.  This
should ruin any hopes of portability because everyone will be speaking a
different language unless the extensions are built into the source code
or output into a special file that can be moved with the code so that
it becomes a base point for the compiler on the new machine.

It is dangerous when these things start to make sense, so I think I will
stop now.

> This looks more like a Christmas list than a practical proposal...

> The language that has every feature you want doesn't exist ...

> features added ... could ... diminish the flow of applications ...
> to the point that the language is no longer a good choice for the
> applications for which it is currently being used.

This is why 'slim C' is for you and me.


Bob Leder - making a nusiance of myself