Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Bug in new K&R?
Message-ID: <1110@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 88 07:26:24 GMT
References: <7861@alice.UUCP> <7860@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7288@bellcore.bellcore.com> <7890@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 24
Posted: Wed May 18 03:26:24 1988

In article <7890@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <11593@ut-sally.UUCP> nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>> It makes me nervous to realize this evolutionary step was made by a
>> committee.

Me too.

> Whoopie do.  What are the alternatives?
> 	1) stagnation at a functionally inadequate level
> 	2) evolution by one individual's fiat (who?)
> 	3) evolution by cooperating individuals (e.g. committee)
> 	4) evolution by battling individuals
> Pick one.  I think I would be MORE nervous with the other
> alternatives.

We did okay with alternative 2 when C was designed, and the same person
is available today (not to say he's interested in actually making the
next step in the evolution of C).  ...And isn't X3J11 really somewhere
between 3 and 4?

					der Mouse

			uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp
			arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu