Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu!kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob
From: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Third public review of X3J11 C
Message-ID: <525@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 88 05:32:56 GMT
References: <8365@smoke.ARPA> <225800053@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <8374@smoke.ARPA> <509@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> <891@l.cc.purdue.edu> <4203@adobe.COM>
Sender: news@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Organization: Ohio State Univ, College of Engineering
Lines: 17

In article <4203@adobe.COM> burgett@steel.UUCP (Michael Burgett) writes:
> [ C is not a numerical language, fortran is, so ]
>just face it, to program effectively
>you just might have to learn more than one language.... (shock! disbelief!!)

And having done so, you might then find that there is a language that
does almost everything you want, could do everything you want with
*only small changes*, and is already better than anything else around.
Can you blame people for then trying to get these minor changes done?
I am not talking about anything like a PL/1 syndrome, because I like C
for its simplicity, and I'd much rather do some work than have the
language bloated, but there are a couple of minor changes that would
greatly improve the utility of C in the numerical field.

Rob Carriere
Face it, C is just to damn *_GOOD_* for you systems guys to keep it
all to yourselves... :-)