Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:315 comp.lang.c:12146 comp.arch:6174
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Third public review of X3J11 C (a scientist speaks up)
Message-ID: <633@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 27 Aug 88 13:37:14 GMT
References: <36243@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <5282@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <13180@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 27
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <13180@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
:                                      Make the changes---write yourself
: a compiler, or have someone else write it---and show that the new
: language is better than the old.

Anticipating at least one possible complaint: compiler writing is
*hard* work.  Agreed.  But you don't have to write the whole
thing.  If you are going to make what are essentially minor
changes, you can do them in available compilers.  For example,
the Gnu compiler which is more-or-less ANSI compatible and which
does not cost money (this is not an endorsement of Stallman et
al.  just recognizing that they exist), or the Minix C compiler
which does cost (but only ~$100), or the Amsterdam Compiler Kit
(which costs a whopping $10,000).  No doubt there are others as
well.

However, I suspect that the essential work would have to be done
in the libraries, but, given that the existing libraries are not
adequate (mostly the point of the complaints, I think), and that
numerical computing is your field, that should be, rather than a
problem, the heart of your activity.  (Urk!  The structure of
that sentence!)


---
Bill
novavax!proxftl!bill