Re: C versus gcc

[noel@cain.anu.edu.au]

    From: byron@netapp.com (Byron Rakitzis)
    Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:02:14 PDT
    To: es@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu, noel@cain.anu.edu.au
    Subject: Re:  C versus gcc
    Return-Path: <netapp!netapp!byron@netcom.com>
    Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com by cain.anu.edu.au (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    	id AA11749; Sat, 3 Oct 92 18:06:00 EST
    Received: from netapp.UUCP by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    	id AA13545; Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:05:09 PDT
    Received: by netapp.netapp.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    	id AA27149; Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:02:14 PDT
    Message-Id: <9210030802.AA27149@netapp.netapp.com>

    It's not "C versus gcc", it's "pcc versus ANSI C". Let's set
    the record straight on that count.

    It would be "C versus gcc" if we started inlining functions, putting
    statements inside expressions, using long longs, and so on. I think
    one concession is made to the GNU C extensions (see: "noreturn") but
    it is carefully #ifdef'ed.

    Aren't you happy we stuck to the Standard C language instead?

    Diatribes aside (though I really wish all those people still in the
    stone age would get off their butts and get with the program, it's not

come on byron, we all know that ANSI C is the camel the ANSI people
designed when they were attempting to design a horse.

this comment from the gnu c-preprocessor sums up the feelings of all
right-thinking people towards ANSI C:

	/* Pre-C-Preprocessor to translate ANSI trigraph idiocy in BUF
	   before main CCCP processing.  Name `pcp' is also in honor of the
	   drugs the trigraph designers must have been on.

    like ANSI C showed up yesterday), I'll do my best to make es similarly

yes, but how many machines out there _HAVE_ (real, not gnu) ANSI compilers?

    portable as rc. (i.e., unproto + pcc should work.)

thanks, that is sufficient.