Subject: Re: Time to update KNF?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/28/2000 09:26:30
[ On , January 17, 2000 at 17:54:05 (-0800), Chris G. Demetriou wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Time to update KNF?
> like, HELLO, it's _2000_, c89 has been around for > 10 years.
> I don't understand why people are hanging on to K&R as a coding
> standard now, since it does have some real known issues, and, despite
> what i'm sure some would claim, is not a standard. 8-)
This may sound "revisionist" (or whatever might be a better word), but:
Just because a standard has been widely used and has been available for
as many years doesn't necessarily mean it's a 100% perfect standard and
should be followed blindly. C89 probably has just as many "known
issues" as the original K&R specification of the language (why else
would there have been such far sweeping changes in C9x?). Wide
acceptance and an official stamp of approval don't necessarily equal
technical correctness and excellence, and especially doesn't equal
I guess I'm just saying that "we" shouldn't blindly follow something
just because some folks say it is *The* Standard (because it isn't! :-).
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>