Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nbires!isis!udenva!cu-den!boulder!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!chinet!dag
From: dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MAJOR ANSI C FLAW (my opinion, of course)
Message-ID: <1748@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 14:02:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: chinet.1748
Posted: Tue Oct 20 14:02:32 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Oct-87 02:27:19 EDT
References: <2997@husc6.UUCP> <2520@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 51
Keywords: Six character external identifier minimum conformance ANSI standard
Summary: Complaints about six char complaints -- some observations

Oh come on now!  It has been said before, and will be said again...
I have a copy of the ANSI document in front of me, and the six character
limit is not a fixed number -- It is a MINIMUM for conforming compilers.
Those of you who don't want to make your programs run on these older
systems with this old limitation on object format will still be writing
standard ANSI C, you just won't be maximally portable.  It is outside of
the ANSI C standardization effort to specify link environments or formats.
The reason that compilers for $500 machines can support long names yet
$100,000 machines can't is that the $500 machines are NEW.  The compiler
writers knew they wanted/needed long external names and guided the
creation of the linkers on those machines.  The program translator proposal
is okay for some, but the resulting code would be less maintainable since
well chosen short names are easier to recognise.  I have worked for both
sides of the dotted line.  I used to work for a major computer manufacturer
and now I work for a C compiler writing company.  From the former, I learned
just how difficult it is to change software tools (which, for non-UNIX systems
are usually not written in C, and which often pre-date UNIX anyway) and from
the latter, I have learned just how much hostility you run into when you try
to replace what has been entrenched as the "standard" for that system, even
if your utility is far better (versitility, speed, features, robustness, etc.)
even if you supply utilities for converting both individual objects and entire
libraries to your new format.  Don't go damning the compiler/computer vendors
for this 6 character minimum, the product I am working on intends to be
ANSI compatible and support flex-name style identifiers (these are not
contradictory) but will allow the user to enable name collision checking
(runtime switch) for maximal portability.  The programmer who has written
and debugged an application with long names needs only log the output
from the compiler using this switch and create a list of "#define"s
to make shorter names to be put in some common include file for the
application.

Request:	Would someone at DEC who is, or know someone who is,
		connected with the RSX group please post some estimation
		of the size of the TKB source and the "language" it is
		written in?  Do you know anyone who understands the whole
		thing?  (MULP may, Covert may, Maybe Day?)

Disclaimer: My employer neither has knowlege of or condones my posting
	    in this subject.  I will not name them, but if you know,
	    don't bother them with it.  I take all responsibility for
	    my comments.

	    Send replies/flames to ...!{cbmvax|ihnp4}!mwc!gorgon!dag 
	    rather than the originating machine for this posting.  I
	    get the mail there more regularly.
-- 
					Daniel A. Glasser
					...!ihnp4!chinet!dag
					...!ihnp4!mwc!dag
					...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag
	One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.