🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22188@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> In article <335:Mar3121:55:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> 
> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >In article <10733@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM () writes:
> >> People are also attributing the qualities of current language
> >> implementations to the languages themselves;
> >It's very difficult *not* to do that, especially for languages without
> >formal standards.
> or, for those languages which have formal (or near-formal) standards that
> you have not bothered to read ...

Ah, yes, you're the type who thinks that ANSI C equals C, and that
Fortran 8X, oops I mean 9X, equals Fortran, and that Common Lisp equals
Lisp... Too bad. C in the real world is *not* the same as ANSI C. Sure,
I find ANSI C and Fortran 21XX and Common Lisp quite interesting. But
anyone who refuses to ``attribute the qualities of current language
implementations to the languages themselves''---except for Algol---is
deluding himself.

---Dan