nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) (05/16/88)
In article <7890@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > In article <11593@ut-sally.UUCP> nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > >It makes me nervous to realize this evolutionary step was made by a > >committee. > > Whoopie do. What are the alternatives? > 1) stagnation at a functionally inadequate level > 2) evolution by one individual's fiat (who?) > 3) evolution by cooperating individuals (e.g. committee) > 4) evolution by battling individuals > Pick one. I think I would be MORE nervous with the other alternatives. If these are the only choices I'm offered, I guess I would pick number 2 because I've seen it work sometimes, even though failure is probably more likely. C was designed by a single individual (dmr) based on his knowledge of many other languages and ideas, on his own experience as a programmer, and on his needs of the moment. Is this the ideal way to design anything? No. Won't you end up with what HE wanted and not what YOU want? Sure. But it will work if he knows what he is doing and has a talent for design, and you may well find you can conform to his way of doing things much easier than you can design your own. I don't really know how much Dennis Ritchie has been involved with this "evolutionary step" but a little boiled over into this newsgroup, so I gather it's not zero. So let me suggest another alternative: 5) evolution by the original designer, based on suggestions by cooperating individuals (e.g. committee). I've been on enough committees to recognize a serious problem: there are too many interfaces between individuals and too little time for really intensive iteration on problems and consequences. A single individual can iterate 10 times while taking a shower -- but not as a member of a committee. He must stop the loop after 1 cycle and check with the other members. With all due (and genuine) respect for the ANSI committee members as individuals, I suggest the method itself is seriously limiting. The ideal way to proceed, in my view, would be to come up with a proposed standard, then give it to Dennis Ritchie and ask him to take out anything he finds offensive, replace awkwardnesses with better solutions if he can find them, and take what he hands you back as the next "evolutionary step." He may well not have the time nor inclination to do it, but I would ask. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/16/88)
In article <11619@ut-sally.UUCP> nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >The ideal way to proceed, in my view, would be to come up with a proposed >standard, then give it to Dennis Ritchie and ask him to take out anything >he finds offensive, replace awkwardnesses with better solutions if he can >find them, and take what he hands you back as the next "evolutionary step." That's not too far from the way we actually proceeded, except Dennis did not have absolute veto power, just a strong influence. Except for type qualifiers and a couple of minor quibbles, he has indicated his approval of the proposed standard. >He may well not have the time nor inclination to do it, but I would ask. In fact, in a congratulatory letter to X3J11, Dennis indicated just that. (I know that *I* think his time is better spent on CS research than on standards activities.) Your point about slow iteration is well taken, but remember that it is somewhat mitigated by having a hundred or so C experts reviewing every proposal. Sequential processing is traded off against parallel processing. Finally, standards bodies wish for a standard to reflect the needs of the user community. Leaving a standard up to one person would not give them much assurance of that.
faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) (05/16/88)
It seems to me that the best reason for having a committee design anything is so that they all will support it. When an individual does something, if people don't like it they won't use it. If they're on the committee that did it, they're much more likely to get behind it, even if they had to make some compromises along the way. Wayne