Re: [OT] lcc first experience

On 10 May 2008 at 21:04, Eric Sosman wrote:
Jacob, it's been twenty-four hours since you were asked to produce
just one example of my endless ranting about conforming extensions in
your compiler. Can you provide an update on your progress?
Investigations going smoothly, I presume? When may we expect results?

Eric, you really can be a total *** sometimes.

Here are a couple of characteristic messages from long threads in the
past few months. I'm sure if you trawl through the archives you'll find
many, many more examples of occasions when you've jumped on the
anti-Jacob bandwagon.


==

Message-ID: <1191450640.668151@news1nwk>
Is this the same debugger about which you said "Without [garbage
collection], I would never have finished?"

Let's see: You've already described C's lack of operator overloading as
evidence of neglect on the part of the committee, you've characterized
__declspec(naked) as an important language feature you use "very often,"
you've railed at the absence of fixed-point arithmetic, ... Is there
any feature, doodad, or dingbat you think *isn't* essential to C's
survival?

==

Message-ID: <y7CdnVgR2bZU7u_anZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Finally, operator overloading is by no means the only fad you promote.
Your exact words were "many things that are necessary in a modern
software development environment," with no limitation on or
characterization of all these so-called "necessities." The sole
mechanism you suggest for deciding whether something would or would not
be a useful change to the language is "Whatever Jacob is enthusiastic
about is an `advance' and goes into Jacob's compiler, which should by
rights be the reference implementation for and definition of C." Pfui!

.