From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 24504 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2023 01:06:34 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 14 Mar 2023 01:06:34 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6D8415FC; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:06:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B14415E1 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:06:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 0EE1135E921; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 18:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 18:06:20 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Paul Winalski Message-ID: <20230314010620.GR9225@mcvoy.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Message-ID-Hash: YRHJKSIRV6XJVT6MAKTYQBMS6BH33IA2 X-Message-ID-Hash: YRHJKSIRV6XJVT6MAKTYQBMS6BH33IA2 X-MailFrom: lm@mcvoy.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Alejandro Colomar , TUHS X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: [TUHS]: C dialects (was: I can't drive 55: "GOTO considered harmful" 55th anniversary) List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 04:48:04PM -0400, Paul Winalski wrote: > On 3/13/23, Clem Cole wrote: > > > > Too many people try to "fix" programming languages, particularly academics > > and folks working on a new PhD. Other folks (Gnu is the best example IMO) > > want to change things so the compiler writers (and it seems like the Linux > > kernel developers) can do something "better" or "more easily." As someone > > (I think Dan Cross) said, when that happens, it's no longer C. Without > > Dennis here to say "whoa," - the committee is a tad open loop. Today's > > language is hardly the language I learned before the "White Book" existed > > in the early/mid 1970s. It's actually quite sad. I'm not so sure we are > > "better" off. > > I'd rather see programming language standards committees restrict > their activity to regularizing existing practice. Let vendors and > others innovate by adding non-standard extensions. Then take those > that are really useful and adopt them as part of the standard. But > the committee itself should not be doing design. We all know what > they say about "design by committee", and it's all too true. I wish I had a magic wand and could upvote this more. You are exactly right, that is exactly what standards should do, maybe with a little leeway to resolve conflicts between 2 good ideas, but no more than that. But ego gets involved and things go pear shaped.