Bug in Unix System V C compiler

[gwyn at brl-tgr.UUCP]

Lack of Berkeleyphilia is not synonymous with Berkeleyphobia.

It is interesting (psychologically, not technically) that every time
I suggest that there has been considerable progress made in some
aspects of UNIX inside AT&T (in this case, a better VAX C compiler),
I get accused of raving Berkeleyphobia.  Do you people who blindly
believe that everything Berkeley does is perfect whereas everything AT&T
does is stupid feel threatened when your (unjustified and unjustifiable)
beliefs are called into question?

Jay's silly example of a UNIX System V compiler "bug" (in not supporting
identifiers longer than 8 characters, which is not even true any more)
in response to my pointing out that one can get correct code generation
on 4.2BSD by using the System V compiler (which is what I do), seemed
to me to call for some sort of rebuttal.  Since my team had not long ago
tried to port some of U. Utah's C code to a non-BSD UNIX system (by the
way, we helped fund the development of some of this code, so I feel I
have a right to complain), I have had first-hand experience with the
unnecessary porting difficulty that  extreme reliance on long
identifiers can cause.

Clyde's "personal insult" from me consisted of my private response to
his net flame that the Teletype 5620 and the layers software were
"obsolete klunkers" (or words to that effect) in which I said that I did
not think he knew what he was talking about (as 5620 users can attest).
When he in turn responded that he was used to receiving personal abuse,
I suggested that there might be a reason for that (using approximately
the same number and tone of words that appear in my paraphrases here).
I wanted to keep this correspondence private, but Clyde has referred to
it publicly without explaining what transpired.  One nice thing, though,
is that since he is no longer reading my postings I don't have to worry
about a flame back in response to this.

Sorry to tie up net bandwidth with this, but I felt that silence could
be misconstrued as acquiescence.