Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wivax!cadmus!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Bug in Unix System V C compiler Message-ID: <3801@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Sat, 4-Aug-84 17:36:07 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3801 Posted: Sat Aug 4 17:36:07 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Aug-84 03:24:59 EDT References: <1068@sdcsvax.UUCP>, <3705@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <2978@utah-cs.UUCP> <3726@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <806@ut-ngp.UUCP> Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 35 Lack of Berkeleyphilia is not synonymous with Berkeleyphobia. It is interesting (psychologically, not technically) that every time I suggest that there has been considerable progress made in some aspects of UNIX inside AT&T (in this case, a better VAX C compiler), I get accused of raving Berkeleyphobia. Do you people who blindly believe that everything Berkeley does is perfect whereas everything AT&T does is stupid feel threatened when your (unjustified and unjustifiable) beliefs are called into question? Jay's silly example of a UNIX System V compiler "bug" (in not supporting identifiers longer than 8 characters, which is not even true any more) in response to my pointing out that one can get correct code generation on 4.2BSD by using the System V compiler (which is what I do), seemed to me to call for some sort of rebuttal. Since my team had not long ago tried to port some of U. Utah's C code to a non-BSD UNIX system (by the way, we helped fund the development of some of this code, so I feel I have a right to complain), I have had first-hand experience with the unnecessary porting difficulty that extreme reliance on long identifiers can cause. Clyde's "personal insult" from me consisted of my private response to his net flame that the Teletype 5620 and the layers software were "obsolete klunkers" (or words to that effect) in which I said that I did not think he knew what he was talking about (as 5620 users can attest). When he in turn responded that he was used to receiving personal abuse, I suggested that there might be a reason for that (using approximately the same number and tone of words that appear in my paraphrases here). I wanted to keep this correspondence private, but Clyde has referred to it publicly without explaining what transpired. One nice thing, though, is that since he is no longer reading my postings I don't have to worry about a flame back in response to this. Sorry to tie up net bandwidth with this, but I felt that silence could be misconstrued as acquiescence.