On 29 October 2012 23:06, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:

>
> gcc etc. are used to deliver a lot of code that is used in
> real word.  And without a standard there would've been lot
> less interoperability and far more bugs.


Most interoperability delivered by gcc comes from the fact that gcc is
widespread, not that the standard is effective. If it was we wouldn't need
to port gcc to everything.


>

You seem to be arguing for K&R as the standard or something
> but we already tried that until 1989. A standard was needed
> due to the success of C and with indepenedent implementations
> that interpreted unwritten things in a different way from K&R.
> I doubt Ritchie and co wanted to take an active and central
> role (and I am not familiar with the history) but my guess
> is only that could've kept the standard simple and readable.
>
>