> When K&R invented C Brian Kernighan didn't invent C, he co-authored a book about it. > Whenever discussions like this come up, I like to quote the C standar

> When K&R invented C Brian Kernighan didn't invent C, he co-authored a book about it. > Whenever discussions like this come up, I like to quote the C standard itself on its definition: "NOTE: Possible undefined behavior ranges from [...] to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment" The actual quote is: "NOTE Possible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment (with or without the issuance of a diagnostic message), to terminating a translation or execution (with the issuance of a diagnostic message)." - but you snipped out the part that contradicted your point. > The whole point of C as K&R and ISO is to let you do "what the hardware does". They left parts of the standard purposefully undefined, so it could remain applicable to a wide variety of implementations. The intention was definitely NOT "screw the programmer" as a lot of the compiler writers seem to have interpreted it, but to allow them to do something that makes sense for the environment. This seems to be contradicted by the full quote above: "ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results" does sound like it's going to "make sense for the environment". It's also pretty inflammatory to say that the intention of a compiler author is to "screw the programmer". > Now we have, mostly academics from what I've noticed, that are taking the language farther and farther away from reality; focusing only on something uselessly abstract, completely ignoring the practical consequences of what they're doing. Compilers are becoming increasingly hostile to programmers. A programming language that had humble and very practical uses, with straightforward and easily understood behaviour, has been perverted into theoretical quagmire of uselessness. So, the "academics" are making compilers "hostile to programmers" and perverting the language into a "theoretical quagmire of uselessness"? That's nonsensical anti-academic garbage unsubstantiated by fact.