seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) (05/13/88)
Why didn't K&R wait for the final, approved ANSI standard before writing K&R 2nd edition? It seems like this book will only be the correct standard for a few months before it will be supesceded by the final ANSI standard. I know that there are likely to be few major changes at this late stage, but why not wait a few months and make sure you get it 100% right, rather than needing to almost immediately write a 3rd edition or be obsolete? Matthew Seitz seitz@cory.berkeley.edu
dmr@alice.UUCP (05/15/88)
We thought it would be nice to mark the 10th anniversary of the first edition. More seriously, we started work last summer because we had the time and inclination then, and it appeared that X3J11 was approaching an end. In December and January, as we were finishing, we considered whether the possibility of important changes warranted putting off delivery, and (after discussing the matter with the publisher) decided that it was not worth waiting. P-H wanted it, and both Brian and I wanted it off our agendas. Even if there are changes in the standard, it's hard to imagine that they would be extensive enough to warrant a new edition. (We were even prepared to cope somehow with noalias, if it had lasted.) We're ready to make necessary changes in a future printing, but there's reason to hope that they should be minor. X3J11's members are very anxious to finish without surprising people, too; many of them work for companies that are preparing ANSI compilers, after all. Dennis Ritchie
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/16/88)
In article <3313@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes: >Why didn't K&R wait for the final, approved ANSI standard before writing >K&R 2nd edition? Obviously Brian and Dennis are the only ones who can fully answer this. I gather from private communications that they wanted to get the 2nd Edition out as a "10th Anniversary" publication, and that it was felt that nothing significant was likely to change between the draft proposed ANS used as a reference for the 2nd Edition and the final ANS. The few changed that were anticipated were handled adequately. Notice, for example, the way they mentioned "noalias" in the 2nd Edition. Whether or not "noalias" stayed in the ANS, the book had it covered. My feeling is that a 3rd Edition will not be necessary to properly reflect the final ANS; the 2nd Edition should do just fine.
bakken@hrsw2.UUCP (David E. Bakken) (05/19/88)
In article <3313@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>, seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes: > > Why didn't K&R wait for the final, approved ANSI standard before writing > K&R 2nd edition? It was probably a marketing decision. If they had waited 6-12 months then many programmers and even novices might have already bought "ANSI C" books from other publishers. -- Dave Bakken Boeing Commercial Airplanes (206) 277-2571 uw-beaver!apcisea!hrsw2!bakken Disclaimer: These are my own views, not those of my employers. Don't let them deter you from buying the 747 you've been saving hard for.