Numerical C and C++

Donn Seeley donn at sdchema.UUCP
Fri Jun 1 16:42:49 AEST 1984

	From: brucee at alice.UUCP

	>   According to some papers on the "C++" language done at Bell
	>   (which they're now just calling "C" and are calling what
	>   those of us in the real world know as "C" "old C"), you
	>   can:

	You seem to know a lot about what's going on here at Bell,
	Guy.  Actually you are as ignorant as the other people who
	submit twenty news items a day.

Actually both of these statements display ignorance: it's not BELL,

I think brucee at alice's remark is completely uncalled for (at least in
net.lang.c; notice that I'm broadening the distribution).  This has to
be the most foolish statement I have seen in a technical newsgroup in,
well, months.  If Guy is wrong, say why!  Or at least state that
details are under discussion and that staffers are not permitted to
disclose anything.  If Guy is a gadfly, so much the better for the net
-- gadflies often stimulate useful comment and debate (but Guy has
clearly failed in that here, after getting an answer like brucee's).
Although I have not found Guy to be omniscient, he is probably
better-informed than most readers of the net, and he is certainly
constructive (which is more than I can say for brucee).

Since some obnoxiously ad-hominem comment is probably required here to
justify involving the net.flame readership, let me say this:  Let's
hope that brucee is not involved in C development efforts, because his
contempt for humanity is a virtual guarantee that none of his software
will be usable.

How did you like that, sports fans?

Donn Seeley    UCSD Chemistry Dept.       ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn

PS  If someone really DOES have something constructive to say about
new developments in C, PLEASE say it.  Otherwise this whole discussion
should promptly be retired to net.flame.

More information about the Comp.lang.c mailing list