Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!orchid!rbutterworth
From: rbutterworth@orchid.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MAJOR ANSI C FLAW (my opinion, of course)
Message-ID: <11151@orchid.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 13-Oct-87 11:47:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: orchid.11151
Posted: Tue Oct 13 11:47:54 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Oct-87 12:58:24 EDT
References: <1132@gilsys.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 29
Keywords: external names, length, bogosity to the max


Yes, the 6 case-insignificant character limit on external names
is a real pain.

However, it is not any compiler-writer that insists on this limit,
it is existing operating systems.  Many systems have been around
for a long time with existing standards for libraries with this
limit built into it.

And while it may seem unreasonable to tell someone that is going
to write a C compiler, C library, or C program that they must
be aware of this limit if they want to run on a particular
operating system, it would be even more unreasonable to tell
the vendor and users of an operating system that they are
going to have to change all their existing compilers, loaders,
libraries, and programs to take a different format of library
simply to accommodate an "improved" version of a C compiler.

I'm sure the typical reaction would be: "Forget it.  We'll
stick with the compilers we have now.  Who needs that crap?"

Imagine you've written a new improved BASIC interpreter and
you want to sell it to IBM.  You go up to them and say:  "Here's
our wonderful new BASIC.  All you have to do if you want to use
it is change your definition of card-image file from 80-columns
to be 96-columns instead, change all your existing programs
and libraries accordingly, and let all your customers know that
they have to change too if they want their programs to continue
working."  Good luck.