> I, personally, happen to have more faith in Paul Vixie and the team
> that works on BIND and named -- specifically, in their ability to
> produce reliable, well-tested, portable, well-thought-out software,
> than in someone who advocates following standards, simply (as far as I
> can see) for the sake of following standards.

Given all the bugs in named, I find that pretty astonishing.

You do understand that a compiler is allowed to use a different calling
sequence for a function that has no return value than for a function with
a value?  You do understand that there are machines (potential and real)
where this makes a performance difference?  Believe it or not, the members
of the ANSI C committee were also a team of bright, knowledgable experts,
who (astonishingly enough) did not invent this restriction JUST TO IRRITATE
YOU.

"Oh, but it works on my compiler, and no one would dare design a computer
where it wouldn't work because of all the software with void main() in it!"

We might as well abandon GNU C and NetBSD entirely and use
Microsoft Visual C++ on MS-DOS, since those are the Systems of Choice among
the vast majority of people who can't imagine anything beyond their own
experience...