scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) (11/17/90)
In article <2713@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: >This group is for discussing the use of (and the rules of) ANSI C. Which group? Posting an article containing the words "this group" under a Newsgroups: line containing two groups is bound to be confusing (at best). Comp.std.c is, to be sure, mostly about ANSI X3.159-1989. But even there, discussions about what isn't in the standard (and why not), and what should be in a future version of the standard (and why) would seem quite appropriate, so there is no implied constraint that discussion stay entirely inside the current "rules of" ANSI C. Comp.lang.c is pretty much wide open for any discussion pertaining to the language C (which is, as has been pointed out, a much bigger animal than the ANSI C standard). I am aware of only two topics which are really discouraged on comp.lang.c: 1. Questions about specific compilers (e.g. PC compilers), and interfacing with specific operating systems, which enjoy a much more receptive audience (and are more likely to receive an answer) in a system-specific newsgroup such as comp.unix.programmer or comp.os.msdos.programmer . 2. Suggestions for "improvements" to the language which are so radical or far-reaching as to define another language, and are encouraged to move to comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.misc, or alt.cfutures (or occasionally alt.religion.computers). Though many of the remaining questions and discussions which arise can seem frivolous, they come with the territory; it would be impossible to come up with any blanket prohibitions against frivolous or inappropriate postings without destroying the character of the newsgroup. As ANSI C becomes more and more widespread, I expect comp.lang.c to be an important support mechanism for people who (through no fault of their own) are still using older compilers. >...the people who read and write >this group mostly want to see people starting using (and conforming to) >the One and Only approved standard for the language C. >Talking about non-conforming (decrepit and anachronistic) implementations >of the C language does not help to promote that goal. You said "mostly," so I will not take issue with this directly, but I can say that I do not participate in these newsgroups to promote any One True Way. The ANSI standard is good (doubtless the best that could have been done), and has been endorsed by many people (including, I hear, dmr), but it is not perfect, and it does not instantly render the compilers which it outdates as "decrepit and anachronistic." I am generally more productive under some of those older but exhaustively shaken-down compilers, even if they don't support prototypes or trigraphs, than I am under brand-new, whiz-bang, feature-overladen modern compilers which often tend to have the most maddening and unnecessary bugs. (This is not to say that all old compilers are Good, nor all new ones Bad, but just that the dichotomy between old and new is not absolute and one-sided.) Steve Summit scs@adam.mit.edu
rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov16.194458.24971@athena.mit.edu> scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) writes: >In article <2713@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: >>This group is for discussing the use of (and the rules of) ANSI C. > >Which group? Posting an article containing the words "this >group" under a Newsgroups: line containing two groups is bound to >be confusing (at best). I apologize to everyone, and especially to the readers of comp.lang.c. When I posted my wild flame about sticking to discussing ANSI C, I confess that I did not check to see what all of the newsgroups were that the original posting (or my follow-up) were going to. Certainly, I have no reason to object to discussions of (so-called) K&R C over in comp.lang.c. I do however encourage everyone to use ANSI C instead. Again... sorry for my goof. -- // Ron Guilmette - C++ Entomologist // Internet: rfg@ncd.com uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg // Motto: If it sticks, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.