Re: fortran reading a line

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So if I find enough less useful features already in the language
that would be a good reason to add it?

I assume that was meant humorously, but then sometimes it is hard to
tell. Just in case....

No. Adding *ANYTHING* to the language requires quite a lot of
justification. There is always a long list of features that people want.
Arguments along the line of "seems like a nice idea; why not?" don't
even come close to flying.

Adding a feature takes work. That is so for even the most
trivial-seeming of features. Something like this one probably isn't
particularly hard, but it is a lot more work than I bet you are
envisioning. One has to look at all the interactions with other
features. Some of those interactiosn will *NOT* be obvious at first; I
guarantee it; they pretty much never are. Anyone who proposes a feature
and claims that it will be practically no work is imediately at a
disadvantage of not sounding plausible, insomuch as many features have
been proposed with such claims, but then turned out to be far, far more
work than initialy alleged.

To get any feature in, you have to argue that it has better cost/benefit
(dunno why it is always described as cost/benefit, when benefit/cost
seems like a more appropriate way to put it) than other features
competing for the same work. There are always other features competing
for the same work.

Oh, and even volunteering to do all the work doesn't hack it because you
can't. Even if you write every word of the changes, the rest of the
committee (and outside reviewers) have to review it.... and more often
than not, find that it has major problems that need further work. I've
been there before - having someone submit an allegedly complete job
which has to be thrown out and redone.

Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IEEE Journals
    ... I've been asked to review some papers, so I know there are reviewers out there who are as unqualified as I am. ... I recently threw out an old Proceedings from 1981 which discussed the limits to shrinking IC features. ... There were a couple of papers that explained, for fundamental theoretical reasons, why features will never shrink below 100nm. ...
  • Re: New filesystem for Linux kernel
    ... aufs2 has already dropped several features. ... reviewers will say it doesn't work in this case, ... that feature set is too little for real world use. ... Sounds like a core functionality:) ...