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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: billy@cast.msstate.edu (Billy Chambless) Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1997/12/29 Message-ID: <688o8c$mab$2@nntp.msstate.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 311079349 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <34A14C27.57C0@min.net> <67rjb3$pfb$1@brie.direct.ca> <34A50CAA.54AA@netup.cl> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> <01bd147e$11496760$6a28b4cf@carla.ici.net> Organization: MSU - Center for Air/Sea Technology Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1997-12-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <01bd147e$11496760$6a28b4cf@carla.ici.net>, "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes: |> John Porter wrote: |> : So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the |> : preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it... |> : I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'! |> No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it |> defined by any piece of paper. A language is defined by usage. A |> combination of compilers and the standard. mmmm.... well, I'd say the standard defines a lot of what the compilers may and may not do. ISO defines ISO C, Borland defines Borland C etc.... |> The ISO Standard defines the core of the language. Any C compiler *must* |> support this common core, but it may also support various extensions to |> Similarly the ANSI/ISO Standard is a snapshot of the common core of the C |> language. The language itself continues to grow and evolve. Actually C9X |> recognizes this but preparing a new 'snapshot' of the language (or at least |> the core). I don't think that's exactly right. It seems that some of the proposded changes aren't really part of existing practice... but I'll shut up and wait for committee members and people who have beed tracking the draft to comment on that. |> The standard is needed to keep the language balance. To keep it from |> changing out of control. It is always an 'after the fact' situation. No, there's more to the standards process than codifying existing practice. Somewhere I have an article by Tom Plum where he says that it was *mumble* months after C89 was ratified before even one compiler passed the Plum Hall validation suite -- a suite of tests that verified how well the compiler complied with the standard. I'm sure that somebody who was closer to the action is reading this, and can comment.