Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!husc6!rutgers!mtune!whuts!whutt!di3000
From: di3000@whutt.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why I won't use ANSI C
Message-ID: <2851@whutt.UUCP>
Date: 4 Feb 88 17:36:56 GMT
References: <5222@utah-cs.UUCP> <5230@utah-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25
Summary: nothing new!

In article <5230@utah-cs.UUCP>, donn@utah-cs.UUCP (Donn Seeley) writes:

	[ most of the article, and all of its content deleted :-) ]
> 
> Of course the magnitude of the rape of Fortran makes C quite innocent
> by comparison (Smith and Metzger report an IBM claim that by several
> statistical measures, Fortran 8X is more complex than Ada), but I hope
> y'all see that the principles (or lack thereof) are the same in both
> cases.
> 
> Donn Seeley    University of Utah CS Dept    donn@cs.utah.edu
> 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W    (801) 581-5668    utah-cs!donn


	Actually by many non-statistical measures, FORTRAN has ALWAYS
been more complex than ADA (substitute any favored language here! :-))
Just *see* the way any compiler writing text warns people off FORTRAN!

	In fact, I like the results of dpANS C, with the exception of this
GODAWFUL mess of noalias.

Michael Siemon
AT&T Bell Laboratories
(try ...!ihnp4!mhuxu!mls)

standard disclaimer.