Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: What Can't C Do? Message-ID: <226@opus.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Mar-84 02:40:12 EST Article-I.D.: opus.226 Posted: Wed Mar 14 02:40:12 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Mar-84 00:27:42 EST References: <6900@unc.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 30 <> The referenced article was mostly on the track of "there are some minor problems, but let's leave well enough alone..." But then... > I'll leave you with about the only change I'd like to see in C that doesn't > increase generality: string comparison operators. I wish this idea would die. It's often useful to look at the language material written by the authors of the language - it provides useful insights. From "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan & Ritchie (the blue and white book): Although the absence of some of these features may seem like a grave deficiency ("You mean I have to call a function to compare two character strings?"), keeping the language down to modest dimensions has brought real benefits. It's useful to realize that the authors not only though about string comparison operators; they decided at that time that they were not appropriate to the level or size of the language. Languages don't get "large" all at once. It happens a feature at a time. Sure, everybody likes the language, and it's really OK as is, but there's just this ONE thing that really ought to be changed...only nobody's "just one thing" is the same as anybody else's. And when it comes to standardization, remember that it's a long process even when everyone is in near-perfect agreement at the start. If you open up the just-one-thing bag, you'll still be waiting for a standard ten years from now. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd