Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa
From: dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Another D idea: RPN (and more)
Message-ID: <12177@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 8 Mar 88 15:02:31 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 35

In article <5318@utah-cs.UUCP> Donn Seeley <utah-cs!donn> writes:
>Actually, this whole 'D' discussion is the best example of how not to
>do language design (or indeed any other kind of design) that I've ever
>seen.

You're missing the point.  We're not so much designing a new language
as we are pointing out the problems/limititations/weaknesses/omissions
in an existing one.  I don't think keeping such things in the closet
is the best way to deal with them.

>Of course, these 'D' proponents have been working from ANSI C's example,

This is totally unjustified.

>PS -- Can we move the 'D' discussion to comp.lang.misc?  Or at least
>move the articles that aren't funny?

Actually, comp.lang.c is an appropriate location for this discussion.
It *is* really about C.  We can all benefit by this discussion.

>PPS -- Naturally, this brings up the issue of what should go into the
>language 'F'...

Sure, which brings up the question of G...  Until there is a D, with
its own shortcomings, there will be no need for a successor.  It's
foolish to say there is no need for a better language than C, since it
has shortcomings we are all too familiar with.

Why do you think cdecl is such a popular program?

=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.

"Words have users, but as well, users have words.  And it is the users that
 establish the world's realities."
					-- Amiri Baraka