Pascals Origins

[gwyn at BRL.ARPA]

I have to agree with the criticisms being made against the recent
content of the INFO-C/net.lang.c mailing list/newsgroup.  I think
some of this is due to the recent rapid spread of the group to
include people who learned C from folks in the Micro world.  Much
of the rest of the junk I attribute to people thinking that it is
useful to discuss how to CHANGE the language.  This is completely
misguided; the natural follow-on to C is C++, which has its own
newsgroup net.lang.c++, and any alterations that will actually
occur to C will be as the result of the ANSI X3J11 standardization
effort, which is getting close to release of a proposed standard
for public review and comment.  There is a moderated newsgroup
mod.std.c for discussions pertinent to the X3J11 effort; however,
be warned that the committee will turn rather deaf ears on
suggestions for radical change, as one of their operative
priniciples is that there be as little invalidation of existing
code as can be feasibly managed while consolidating the already
divergent minor dialects of the language.  Fortunately, there has
been a single acknowledged de facto standard for C that provided
stability for a large segment of the language (similar to the
revised Pascal report for that language before it was standardized).
A second de facto standard for the C environment occurred because
of the close association of C with UNIX.  X3J11 is codifying all
this, and that will certainly be what C "is" for some time to come.

I believe that this particular newsgroup should serve as a forum
for technical aspects of the language (as it happens to be).
Questions about the use of macros to accomplish a general swap
are one recent example of a valid topic; attempts to clarify
the meaning of "array[]" are another.  HOWever, it serves no
useful purpose for people who barely understand C to try to
explain tricky technical points to the group; there are several
well-qualified "regulars" in this group who can do a better job.
(Even they make mistakes, but when they do, the ensuing
discussion is generally enlightening rather than confusing.)

I don't know of any way to force this newsgroup to re-acquire
some of its lost value; I don't think moderating it would be
a very good solution.  The only hope I have for it is for there
to be a widespread agreement amongst the group members on the
legitimate purposes of the group (which I just discussed), and
a serious attempt by everyone to cooperate with keeping the
discussions germane.  It would be a real pity if the serious C
users had to invent some other mechanism of communicating,
when this one should be able to serve well.