From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,37ed89588a753b4c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-29 01:16:11 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!fauern!zib-berlin.de!prise.nz.dlr.de!news.dfn.de!swiss.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.mathworks.com!panix!cmcl2!lab.ultra.nyu.edu!kenner From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RMS's response to "Re: ARPA still undermining Ada" Date: 27 Oct 1994 17:39:51 GMT Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab Message-ID: <38ool7$spv@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> References: <37uif1$i27@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lab.ultra.nyu.edu Date: 1994-10-27T17:39:51+00:00 List-Id: In article bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes: >That description does not square with my recollection. > >After a talk I gave a long time ago (8 or 10 years ago, I think) >at some Californian university, a wild looking guy walked up to >me wrote half a dozen suggested changes to C++ on the blackboard >and demanded (not suggested) I adopt them. ... The guy yelled >``I had not expected such a hostile reaction!'' did some strange gestures >with his arms and hands, and walked off. > >I was somewhat startled by this unusual behavior - that is why I >remember the conversation. People who had been standing around >listening told me that that the guy was Richard Stallman. I forwarded this to RMS and here's what he had to say: [I asked kenner to post this for me because I don't do netnews myself.] Today I received a forwarded news posting by Stroustrup, and read that I had "demanded (not suggested)" certain changes in C++. I think I should say what actually did happen. When I met Stroustrup, I had been concerned for some time about certain minor aspects of the grammar of C++ which cause major practical problems (ambiguity and gratuitous incompatibility with C). These particular grammar points don't contribute anything to the salient features of C++ because they are too minor. I considered these serious problems and I was glad to have a chance to talk to Stroustrup about them. I did not, however, make a demand. I expected he would share my concern about the problems. I expected he would do something about them, not because I said so, but because it would be good for the users. I believed firmly in the importance of solving these problems. Stroustrup may have mistaken firmness of belief for a demand. But Stroustrup did not regard gratuitous incompatibility and ambiguous grammar as problems and had no interest in these changes. I went away and decided not to use C++, at least in its current form. I considered implementing a cleaned up version of C++ syntax myself, with a -bs option to select the Bjarne Stroustrup syntax. I spoke about this idea at Tri-Ada. But I never implemented this--I was too busy with other things. It may be too late now to consider changing these things. But if you *want to do the work* of implementing a rationalized C++, please contact me, and I'll try to remember the issues which I've had several years to forget. At least it would be fun to have an excuse to have an option named -bs. (Please don't ask if you aren't prepared to do the work--I don't want to spend time discussing these grammar issues unless it does practical good.)