Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@brl-vld From: gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Improving C Message-ID: <16886@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Feb-84 20:05:54 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16886 Posted: Thu Feb 23 20:05:54 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 11:19:54 EST Lines: 21 From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)I started to prepare detailed point-by-point responses to your suggestions for "improvements" to C, but I got tired of it after a while. Basically, my impression is that you do not properly understand the charter of the C language. Many of your suggestions would force significant run-time overhead for all C programs, to support operations that are either unnecessary if you know how to use C effectively or can be done already without forcing a global implementation that may not be suitable for all applications. The ANSI C Language Standards Committee has addressed most of the issues that can be resolved without breaking the millions of lines of existing C source code. A more featureful follow-on language, C++, appears to be under development inside AT&T Bell Laboratories; it includes abstract data types a la "classes" and other improvements. One rule for C itself is to not add any keywords to the language; C++ would be exempt from this. One of the great attractions of C is the simplicity and elegance of its basic design (although there are a few misfeatures, certainly). It would be a pity to lose that in a sea of "features".