Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MAJOR ANSI C WART (my opinion, of course)
Message-ID: <2503@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 21:12:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.2503
Posted: Tue Oct 20 21:12:32 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 16:35:35 EDT
References: <1298@wyszecki.munsell.UUCP> <1386@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT.
Lines: 27

In article <1386@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>In article <1298@wyszecki.munsell.UUCP> jwf@munsell.UUCP (Jim Franklin) writes:
>Compiler vendors have to do a lot of work to convert K+R compilers into
>ANSI C compilers. Since they will have to do this work anyway, what's the
>big deal about fixing the linker so it will handle 32 character names?

When a C compiler is rewritten to conform to the standard, only the C users
are inconvenienced by the transition.  Since they are presumably the
beneficiaries from standardization, this is fine.

When the linker for an operating system is changed, *all* the developers are
impacted.  In the case of the principle mainframe operating system in the
world, the C users are a tiny fraction of that population.

>I don't understand the problem that the vendors have. If the vendors don't
>have control over the linker, they can write their own. I know from
>experience: for Datalight C, ...

This is realistic for micro-computers, but not really for minis.  In the
mainframe environment, forget it.  Even for minis, people want to link
together programs written in different languages.  This won't work if each
language has its own linker.  (The time is coming when this won't do in the
micro arena, either.)
-- 

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108