Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2681 comp.misc:7680
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!nick
From: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.misc
Subject: Enough, please... (Coding standards, Programmer productivity)
Message-ID: <1418@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Dec 89 12:12:31 GMT
References: <Nov.18.22.47.26.1989.9685@paul.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Edinburgh University Computer Services
Lines: 33

<34796@regenmeister.uucp> <2226@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
<128179@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <546@sagpd1.UUCP> <4727@netcom.UUCP>
<4290@pegasus.ATT.COM> <9185@hoptoad.uucp> <600@fred.UUCP> <MEISSNER.89Dec14094015@tiktok.rtp.dg.com> and thousands of others.....
Reply-To: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Followup-To: comp.software-eng
In-reply-to: meissner@dg-rtp.dg.com (Michael Meissner)
Distribution: world
Organization: LFCS Enya Admiration Society

>(insn 7 6 8 (set (reg:SI 2)
>       (symbol_ref:SI ("*@LC0"))) 89 (nil)
>   (nil)
>   (nil))

I seem to recall that this whole discussion started a couple of weeks
ago when somebody asked about sharing local declarations between
functions (I'm not even sure it was related to C). Rather than a
discussion about language features, semantics, transformations, or
anything like this, it was quickly turned into a flame war about C
linkers (complete with assembly code).
   Is it any wonder that the state of software development is so poor
when discussions of languages, abstraction and programming
methodologies are seen as equivalent to arguments about how linkers
work for C under Unix?
   I rest my case.
   Where did I leave my asbestos jacket?

		Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk    <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
  "...all these moments... will be lost in time... like tears in rain."