🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6800@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >'Twas hardly amazing. What amazes me is that there are *still* people
> >posting to this newsgroup asking questions like ``Ya know, I haven't
> >seen any portable first-class composable function implementations that
> >don't have arbitrary limits. Is this because they are impossible, or is
> >there some sneaky way?'' ...
> Dan, you obviously missed the point.
  [ blah, blah, blah ]

Let me rephrase the above paragraph, since Dave obviously didn't read it
before following up. First sentence: From the start of this discussion I
have considered the programming involved to be entirely trivial. I think
everyone involved agrees with me. The arguments over terminology have
turned out to be a lot more interesting; I've learned to take a much
broader view of ``first-class'' because of this thread.

Second sentence, and pseudo-quote: Why tf are people posting articles
that show they refuse to think through the issues for themselves? It is
trivial to implement portable, dynamically allocated, first-class,
composable functions in C, and I'm amazed that people are asking whether
it's possible.

Now Dave spends sixty lines saying that the programming involved is
trivial. I thought I had just said the same thing.

So, Dave, exactly what point did I miss?

  [ Ching say, wise man implement interpreter in compiled language ]
> No doubt you'll claim that your answer is different,

Don't put words into my mouth.

> That's why your answer is boring; it's
> obvious.

Dave, notably lacking from your USENET education is this tidbit of
advice: If you follow up to an article, say that the author missed the
point, and then make the same points he did, don't bother following up.

> By the way Dan, how is it that growing arrays by reallocation has
> quadratic cost?  I must have missed your answer.

Wtf does that have to do with comp.lang.misc? Go read comp.lang.c.

---Dan