Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Optimal structure field ordering
Message-ID: <837@garth.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jun 88 20:43:10 GMT
References: <163@navtech.uucp> <806@garth.UUCP> <254@obie.UUCP>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 12

>       This might start another `volatile' war :-) but it ain't good
>for those who use C for what it was intended - systems programming :-).

Hopefully the volatile war is resolved by both sides leaving their moral
high ground and meeting in the valley of compromise (by the stream of
standarisation on the lawn of progress which feeds the cattle of prosperity
which leave the piles of.....).

My point not being what C should or should not do, but that overspecifying a
problem solution is as bad as underspecifying. The question of optimal
field orderring and packing is difficult and a good solution on one system
can be a terrible solution on another.