Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Making binary groups obsolete (a week's worth of replies in one message)
Message-ID: <314@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 5-Aug-87 00:43:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.314
Posted: Wed Aug  5 00:43:54 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Aug-87 02:38:48 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <3726@ncoast.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 45
Summary: overview of replies


Having been away for a week, a considerable pile of misunderstanding
has accumulated on the question of the relation between a free public
domain C compiler and the needlessness of binary groups.   The
following aspects of the offer were apparently overlooked:
    1) Multiple memory models, optimization levels, etc. can all be
       handled by choosing a particular intermediate language assembler/loader.
    2) While some programs written in C may not port between differing
       operating systems, certainly any C code is easier to port than
       a binary.
    3) Said compiler/assemblers would be available to everyone (including
       those who haven't studied compiler writing).
    4) Having programmed and studied a vast number of languages, I feel
       that C offers the best compromise between language facilities and
       execution quality of code generated in a straight-forward manner.
    5) Also, C is the language most likely to be known to a user of a 
       Unix system (which was where Usenet began).  [Note: a user that
       knows no languages certainly knows no languages better than C.]
    6) As far as I am concerned (other governments may have other notions),
       a programmer cannot offer binary-only and deny responsibility
       for the consequences of bugs in the program.  Since there is nothing
       that can be done conveniently with binary except execute it, clearly
       posting binary is an encouragement of others to execute.  Since the
       recipient can not study the algorithm and judge for theirself whether
       or not the program will cause trouble, clearly they must rely on
       the judgement of the poster.  When that judgement is wrong, they
       should clearly be awarded damages.  Clearly, when one is dealing
       in binaries, contracts need to be signed to establish levels of
       responsibility.  Hence, binaries are not appropriate for bboard
       distribution.
    7) Source is not an invitation to execute but rather an attempt to
       communicate an algorithm with the best technology currently known,
       i.e., within a programming language.  Thus, no liability is taken.
    8) Note: I am not claiming everyone must give the net all of their
       sources, only that if they want to share a program, this is the
       appropriate way to do it.  Sharing is not mandatory.  For example,
       my original note stipulated that the mentioned compiler would only
       be posted to Usenet under certain conditions.
    9) Finally, ANSI C is/will be the product of a committee, whereas
       C originally had the flavour of a language designed by a human.
       Ada, ANSI Pascal, Fortran 77, PL/1, and Common Lisp are other 
       examples of committee `camelizations of the horse'.  There is a
       definite trend here folks.  I am perfectly happy to resist it.

----- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)