From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:56:20 -0500
From: "William K. Josephson" <spmnojkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
Message-ID: <20021113165620.GD82247@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <a7e3b9ec68921ac1a958447d0178eec7@vitanuova.com> <29597830.1037174088@WAAKZAAMHEID>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <29597830.1037174088@WAAKZAAMHEID>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1ce8e7a8-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:54:48AM -0800, rob pike wrote:
> the earth.  (Even when the compiler resists the needless
> complexity, the libraries and ohmygod include files suffice
> to bloat and confuse beyond redemption.)  The problem is of
> course that only curmudgeons like me feel the need; everyone
> else wants the rat's nest, which is why we got it in the first
> place.

It gets worse: "you must use foo_uint32_t because we don't want
to get burned if the size of the standard types change".  The
amount of time I wasted yesterday all because people insist using
poorly thought out additions to the language, header files, and
libraries is not to be believed.  They mumble about "simplicity"
and then insist on using the worst voodoo in C99 :-)