Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!pyr!roy
From: roy@pyr.gatech.EDU (Roy Mongiovi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (So-Called) ANSI C
Message-ID: <4725@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: 6 Jan 88 17:08:37 GMT
References: <4668@pyr.gatech.EDU> <495@xyzzy.UUCP> <9930@mimsy.UUCP> <6925@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lines: 26

In article <6925@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <228@unicom.UUCP> unicom!physh writes:
> >..., then I will conclude that the ANSI effort was a failure, since they
> >will have defined a different language than the one we are all using now.
> 
> I would be interested in seeing the portable language specification for the
> language you think we're "all" using now!  I think if there were such a well-
> defined language, X3J11 would have had a much simpler job.

I still think that one develops a standard by finding a common SUBSET to the
existing dialects of a language, not by throwing in everything up to and
including the kitchen sink that someone somewhere thinks would be nice to
have.  That's not a standard, it's a successor language.

It has been asked why so few comments on the ANSI standard have been turned
in to the review process.  I myself have commented on the standard as a whole,
but not specifically on the contents of the standard.  Personally, I don't
care one whit about ANSI C.  I like the C language, and ANSI C isn't it.  I
don't see the point in making specific comments about features of ANSI C when
I consider the entire thing to be misguided.

So, call it D (C + 1) or P (the next letter of BCPL), but don't call it C.
-- 
Roy J. Mongiovi     System Support Specialist     Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology		Atlanta GA  30332.	(404) 894-4660
	...!{allegra, amd, hplabs, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy