want to know

[Badger BA 64810]

In article <10865 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <1989Aug28.202551.9514 at algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey at algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
>>Now bigapp.c, ut1.c, ut2.c, etc., each must have a main().  This is
>>annoying for use with debuggers, cross-referencers, etc.
>
>If your debuggers etc. are that sick, then how in the world do you cope
>with using the same file-static variable and function names in different
>files?  Really, I still don't see a problem with C and main().  There
>may be a problem with your other software development tools, though, if
>they can't handle such a simple thing.

Of course, tools can do make-up fixes and kludge their way around a problem.
Who needs ``for'' or ``while'' when you have ``if'' and ``goto''?? (:-))
This is the difference between ``unworkable'' and ``annoying''.  

But Mr. Gwyn is saying,  ``What problem?''

It's kind of like having a tiny bubble in the lens of your glasses.  
It doesn't really interfere with your vision, and is hardly noticable 
unless you look directly at your glasses.  Yet there are those of us
who prefer to have our glasses without bubbles in the lenses.  Some
will say,  ``But it's so small!''  Others will tell us to tip our
heads and look through the top half of the lenses only.  ``People who
can't see over the bubble in their glasses don't know how to use their
eyes.'' 

Well, it really is only a small detail, but it is a completely
unnecessary implementation ``feechur'' which has, unfortunately,
always been a part of the standard.

I can't quite decide if Mr. Gwyn has actual reservations about
doing without ``main()''.  If the burden of proof was on putting 
``main()'' into a new language, instead of taking it out of a language,
how would you stand?

Footnote:
I see two distinct sides the problem of ``main()'':
  1) Having to specify a single, fixed, main routine
  2) Having to call the single, fixed, main routine, ``main''.
(I'm making a distinction here between the ``main routine'' and the 
image entry point.) Side 1 probably deserves a separate thread, since
the issues are more complex.  Since most of the discussion to this
point has been on side 2 of the problem, I've limite my comments in
this article to side 2.  I have assumed, for argument's sake, that 
the only thing we want to change about in:
	int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp);
is the name ``main''.

    -----	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	----
Bernard A. Badger Jr.	407/984-6385          |``Get a LIFE!''  -- J.H. Conway
Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL  32902             |Buddy, can you paradigm?
Internet: bbadger%x102c at trantor.harris-atd.com|'s/./&&/g' Tom sed expansively.