Third public review of X3J11 C

[Herman Rubin]

In article <8659 at ihlpb.ATT.COM>, nevin1 at ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) writes:
> In article <891 at l.cc.purdue.edu> cik at l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> 
> >As a researcher, I find it
> >necessary to glance at more than 200 journals.  I certainly missed the
> >announcement in CACM (one of my lower priority journals).
> 
> So you, as a *researcher*, wanted to know if anything spectacular was
> happening in the C language development community.  Did you start your
> research into this subject by looking at a journal designed for this
> group?  From what you have posted so far, this does not appear to be
> the case.
> 
> >I do not believe it appeared in _Science_, the journal of AAAS.  Now most
> >mathematicians and statisticians do not read any of the above named journals.
> 
> And most R&D computer people do not read Science.  Do mathematicians
> and statisticians make important announcements in the CACM?  I think
> not.

If mathematicians or statisticians attempt to produce a product to be used
by people in other fields, they surely make an effort to inform the users.

Research in computer science generally should not be advertised in other 
journals.  Research in programming languages are of this type.  Mathematicians
and statisticians are not that arrogant that they would attempt to freeze
terminology for use by biologists, sociologists, physicists, computer
scientists, etc.  The committee to establish C standards is doing this.
Therefore, they have the obligation to find out how that will impact the
users.

> >How about asking
> >the physicists and chemists and astronomers and geologists and biologists?
> >(Apologies to the groups left out are in order.)
> 
> Apologies NOT accepted!  If you can't come up with the definitive list
> of places where this information should be published to reach everybody
> who might even be remotely interested in this, why are you expecting
> anyone else to be able to?  Also, how many of these groups are really
> interested in codifying existing C practice (as the X3J11 charter
> clearly mandates), or are they just interested in getting their 'wish
> list' kludged into the language (as you seem to be)?

The apologies are mine.  However, when I post a reply to this group stating
that various users should be consulted, I do not feel obligated to come up
with a complete list.  The C committee is composed of a larger number of
people and is more deliberative; it can and should be expected to come up
with a list which will leave out few users or potential users.

What does it mean to codify existing C practice?  If it means what you are
implying, it is like the French Academy attempting to keep out English and
making a mess.

BTW, there are many statistical packages.  I recommend that they not be used.
If the user does not understand the problem, they will give wrong answers.
Programming languages are somewhat similar.  Fortunately, most of the time
they give correct answers, albeit slowly.  Since a UTM can handle all problems,
any problem can be done clumsily on any machine with any remotely reasonable
HLL.  You can walk from New York to Los Angeles, but you will probably use
an airplane instead.

Summarizing, languages (and operating systems) exist for the purpose of
enabling the user to efficiently use the capabilities of the machines to
solve problems.  Currently, they fail to do this for people who can 
understand the machine's capabilities.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin at l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)