home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil>
-
- In article <738@longway.TIC.COM> From: ahby@uinj.UI.ORG (Shane McCarron)
- >Remember the history of POSIX.1. We have a standard which should have
- >been specified in a language independent manner. If that had been
- >done, a number of the functions that are in the standard would not be
- >there, or would be in the C bindings section. They are convenience
- >functions for C. Likewise, there will be convenience functions for
- >other languages. Ada is particularly nasty, for all the obvious
- >reasons.
-
- I DO remember the history of 1003.1; I was there! We most certainly
- did NOT set out to create a language-independent standard; C was
- specifically chosen for the obvious reason that it was the SOLE
- appropriate language for systems-level programming on UNIX, for a
- variety of reasons, including the fact that the UNIX kernel has a
- marked preference for being fed C data types.
-
- This "language binding" nonsense was foisted off on P1003 in an
- attempt to meet ISO guidelines. I think it must have been adopted
- by ISO as the result of Pascal types insisting that they never have
- to use any other language.
-
- Clearly, a BASIC, COBOL, or even LISP binding to 1003.1 would be
- ludicrous. I don't know how languages are selected for binding,
- but I do know what constitutes a UNIX system interface, and if a
- language can support one then that is what it should be given as a
- 1003.1 binding.
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 51
-
-