Bug in new K&R?

[David Collier-Brown]

>In article <11593 at ut-sally.UUCP> nather at ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>>It makes me nervous to realize this evolutionary step was made by a
>>committee.

In article <7890 at brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>Whoopie do.  What are the alternatives?
>	1) stagnation at a functionally inadequate level
>	2) evolution by one individual's fiat (who?)
>	3) evolution by cooperating individuals (e.g. committee)
>	4) evolution by battling individuals
>Pick one.  I think I would be MORE nervous with the other alternatives.
	2a) evolution by a respected author's proposal and
	   committee vetting & acceptance (K&R II?)
	2b) evolution by a respected author's proposal and
	   independant, individual acceptance (K&R II?)
	4a) evolution into a different, translatable form
	   (specifically C++)
	5) replacement by an upwards-compatible low- or medium-level
	   language (C++ perhaps, but its a weak example)
	6) replacement in particular problem domains by VHLLs
	   (usually under the guise of 4GLs)

  In other words, the problem space is larger than the language...

--dave (I like 2a and 3) c-b
-- 
 David Collier-Brown.  {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb
 Geac Computers Ltd.,  | "His Majesty made you a major 
 350 Steelcase Road,   |  because he believed you would 
 Markham, Ontario.     |  know when not to obey his orders"