A/UX concerns (was "A/UX cc -- a ghost from the past")

[Mark Bartelt]

Earlier this week I wrote ...

> We recently got A/UX for one of our MacIIs, and were appalled to discover
> that the C compiler isn't X3J11 compliant.  The guy who uses that system
> sent me the following last night:
> 
> | Horror of horrors!  After converting all my beautifully prototyped
> | mac interface programs to port over to AUX, I find that the AUX
> | compiler is some prehistoric monster that doesn't respect the ANSI
> | 'standard'.
 [ ... ]
>                                                             [H]ow does
> Apple expect to be taken seriously if a recent major release of their
> UNIX product doesn't even contain an X3J11 compliant compiler?

... to which Kent Sandvik from Apple replied ...

> Well, most of the basic Unix workstation system C compilers are 'prehistoric
> mosters' originating from the terrifying, Tyrannosaurus pcc from
> the continent of AT&T.

Um, I beg to differ.  Of the three UNIXes I use most often, two (IRIX from
SGI; Ultrix from DEC) provide ANSI compliant C compilers.  I can't vouch
for the fact that they're 100% in conformance with X3J11, but they do at
least support function prototypes.  IRIX has had this *at least* since
version 3.2, which is copyrighted 1988; I have no idea how long Ultrix
has had it.

And the two non-UNIX C compilers that I've been using a lot (Microsoft C
for (yuck) MS-DOS; Avocet C cross compiler for the 68HC11) are also ANSI
compatible.

>                        With the advent of System V.4 AT&T is *finally*
> shipping an ANSI C compliant C compiler as part of the UNIX system
> release.

Righto.  But there's no reason Apple has to sit around waiting for AT&T
to get its act together, as other vendors have demonstrated.

My real concern is more general than just a complaint about A/UX's cc.
I get the feeling that Apple doesn't really have much of a commitment
to UNIX.  Ten or so years ago, DEC had a small (tiny!), but talented
and dedicated UNIX group, before the company even had an "official"
UNIX product.  And they had a couple of managers with the foresight to
realize that the company should push forward with UNIX, and the sooner
the better.  Unfortunately, most of DEC's management spent most of their
energy trying to fight and suppress the UNIX groundswell (coming both
from customers and from within their own company), rather than making
a strong and unequivocal commitment to supporting UNIX.

Finally, Ultrix seems to have succeeded, despite the attitude of DEC's
upper management.  But it was a long time coming, and during the 1980s
DEC lost a lot of sales, due largely to a perception on the part of its
customers and its potential customers that the company lacked a strong
commitment to provide a top-quality UNIX product.

My worry is that this is exactly the position that Apple is in now.
I don't doubt that the A/UX group has some really good people in it,
both techies and managers.  But I can't shake the nagging suspicion
that they're both unappreciated by the rest of the company, and most
likely badly underfunded as well.  After all, the fact that A/UX 2.0
(a *recent* product) arrived lacking a modern C compiler is certainly
symptomatic of something.

I hope that my fears are unfounded, and that someone from Apple can
reassure me.  But if my suspicion is correct, it's bad news for those
people who want to use A/UX, since it means that a lack of internal
support for the folks who write, improve, maintain, and document A/UX
will ensure that Apple's UNIX product will always lag behind the others.

Mark Bartelt                                             416/978-5619
Canadian Institute for                       sysmark at cita.toronto.edu
Theoretical Astrophysics                     sysmark at cita.utoronto.ca