From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20121030030634.1DDFFB827@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <15723310.yIARpoJMSL@coil> <4824335454f1b1d47dbc8439b4af8ea3@kw.quanstro.net> <20121029223541.8C198B827@mail.bitblocks.com> <0f05642b113b3ecfc160e82a9ca4db32@brasstown.quanstro.net> <20121029232652.5160BB827@mail.bitblocks.com> <74f73b64cc6de4a3bd10367591439816@kw.quanstro.net> <20121030003501.AE691B827@mail.bitblocks.com> <20121030030634.1DDFFB827@mail.bitblocks.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:16:01 -0400 Message-ID: From: Corey Thomasson To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10d243ac28f204cd3e346b Subject: Re: [9fans] caveat... optimizer? the `zero and forget' thread on HN Topicbox-Message-UUID: ccefb8c8-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --047d7b10d243ac28f204cd3e346b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 29 October 2012 23:06, Bakul Shah 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. > > --047d7b10d243ac28f204cd3e346b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. =A0And without a standard there would've been lot
less interoperability and far more bugs.

Mo= st interoperability delivered by gcc comes from the fact that gcc is widesp= read, not that the standard is effective. If it was we wouldn't need to= port gcc to everything.
=A0
=A0
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.


--047d7b10d243ac28f204cd3e346b--