Moderated C group ? (was Re: Postin

[Tom Neff]

In article <6200007 at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> this guy phil at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>On which newsgroup IS it appropriate.  Inquiring minds might want to know the
>real history behind the decision to make C case sensitive.  Is discussion of
>the history of the C language inappropriate on comp.lang.c?

I think the "inappropriate" tag on this question has more to do with 
the "why question that which you cannot change" attitude. It's not the 
only valid attitude in the world but it's a useful one when holding 
down bandwidth is an ongoing goal. :-) 

I regret that I cannot provide historical reasons why C was case 
sensitive, but since we have Ritchie and others on the net I'm sure 
the answer will be forthcoming. As a user I'd just like to say that I 
find it PERFECTLY REASONABLE to do business this way. Case sensitivity 
encourages an orderly editorial style towards identifiers. And if you 
get one wrong the compiler tends to let you know IMMEDIATELY, so 
what's the danger. Programmers tend not to have things like "i" and 
"I" in the same module in my experience, so the risk of total 
misidentification seems small. Lint cures many things. Meanwhile you 
are spared the specter of a junior programmer tacking something onto 
YOUR code with completely different and unreadable case conventions, 
and having the d*** thing COMPILE OK, as often happens with me and 
PL/M. (PL/M is even worse because dollar signs aren't significant in 
identifiers -- get$next$block and GETNEXTBLOCK and 
g$E$t$N$e$X$t$B$$$$$$$$$$l$$$O$$c$K are all the same identifier.) 
-- 
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
--
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff at bfmny0.UU.NET