A revolutionary OS/Programming Idea

[Lynn H. Maxson]

Tom Novelli writes:
"...If I was using PL/I, I'd define "int" as a 32-bit integer unless 
I was trying to write highly portable code.. I know it'll work 
efficiently on my machine, and there's no sense worrying 
about precisely how many bits each variable needs, as long as 
32 is enough.  I'm not saying C is better than PL/I.. but it helps 
to keep programmers from being unrealistic."

Apparently you failed to appreciate why the UNIX industry 
founded the OSF (Open Systems Foundation).  When you 
discovered that C did not have the "portability" that 
customers with multiple platforms (or wanting to transfer to a 
different platform) installed wanted, but only that restricted 
form envisioned by K&R ease the task of writing a compiler 
(porting).  Customers tend to regard portability of data as 
equally important as that of source code.

The principal villain here was "int", which frankly would never 
occur with "fixed bin (31)" regardless of the underlying 
platform architecture.  You see unlike "int" it's portable.  You 
don't need a standards committee, only a clear statement by 
the programmer.<g>

There's a difference between being realistic and lazy, 
between portable and non-portable, and between optimal and 
non-optimal.  There's also a difference between the match 
you have with the problem and solution set.  If you want 
portability, choose PL/I.  If you want near assembly language 
capabilities, choose PL/I.  If you want the casual reader to 
more easily master reading of source, choose PL/I.

C may have become a popular choice, but popular does not 
mean best or better.