Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 18:23:41 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: dyson@freebsd.org Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu, grog@lemis.com, julian@whistle.com, bde@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bruce vandalism again Message-ID: <199712210123.SAA25464@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199712201845.NAA00285@dyson.iquest.net> References: <14454.882641857@time.cdrom.com> <199712201845.NAA00285@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > If style(9) is broken, which apparently it is, then it should be fixed. > > > It isn't a religious document, but one that should change with the times. > > > > It's not broken. > > So we buck the trend of the Industry? Many/most shops will blow your > code away if it isn't ANSI. Those kind of shops aren't worth dealing with. Many shops will blow your code away if it isn't COBOL either, and they are as relevant to the argument as the above shops. > (Imagine a design review: Why didn't > you (another person, not you JKH) declare and instantiate your functions > correctly, and default to K&R. Oh right, you are an old programmer, who > grew up with K&R; well we don't do that anymore.) So what? If that's the kind of folks who are doing the design reviews, then they have nothing to say. Those kind of shops are the same ones that brought us 'New Technology', which is a joke in the OS world. John, I think you're making a big issue about a non-issue. The reason the code in FreeBSD is using K&R style is because it was written before ANSI. It hasn't been modified to ANSI style simply because it hasn't needed to. Tell your design reviewers that the 'old' code is still more robust/effecient and just as functional (if not more) than the 'new' ANSI code, and that changing code to have ANSI functions just to have ANSI functions is simply a waste of time. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712210123.SAA25464>