4 ms·

> Through the 80s it was the other way around. You counted as having a language with a spec, even if there was no implementation, but an implementation without

> Through the 80s it was the other way around. You counted as having a language with a spec, even if there was no implementation, but an implementation without a spec was a "toy" Not to my recollection. I don’t recall anyone at uni discussing a C standard until 1989, and even by 2000 few compilers were fully compliant with that C89 spec. There were so many incompatible dialects of FORTRAN 77 that most code had to be modified at least a bit for a new compiler or hardware platform. All of the BASIC and Pascal variants were incompatible with each other. They were defined by “what this implementation does” and not a formal specification.

aidenn0 6y ago
C was specified by K&R in 1978. Pascal had a specification for the core language, and BASIC was largely seen as a toy.
- tatersolid 6y ago
  > C was specified by K&R in 1978. No it wasn’t. K&R was far removed from many C implementations of the time, wasn’t ever written as a formal spec, and had gaping holes of undefined behavior. An educational textbook isn’t a formal language specification.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    C was the K&R book, PASCAL was the User manual and Report. These were the platonic ideals of the languages. The specification was the language, the fact that there was an implementation was a bonus. I never once in my comments above said "formal" so perhaps we are meaning two very different things by "specification." No version of Cs specification since K&R has done away with undefined, nor implementation defined behavior.
    - tatersolid 6y ago
      > C was the K&R book How could this be when zero implementations behaved in accordance with K&R? The authors and fans may have claimed it as a “spec”, but it never was a functional “spec” in the real world.
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        That's the point. The language spec was the platonic ideal, and implementations were just imperfect realizations. There were actual languages that still have no implementations.

aidenn0 6y ago

C was specified by K&R in 1978. Pascal had a specification for the core language, and BASIC was largely seen as a toy.

tatersolid 6y ago
> C was specified by K&R in 1978. No it wasn’t. K&R was far removed from many C implementations of the time, wasn’t ever written as a formal spec, and had gaping holes of undefined behavior. An educational textbook isn’t a formal language specification.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  C was the K&R book, PASCAL was the User manual and Report. These were the platonic ideals of the languages. The specification was the language, the fact that there was an implementation was a bonus. I never once in my comments above said "formal" so perhaps we are meaning two very different things by "specification." No version of Cs specification since K&R has done away with undefined, nor implementation defined behavior.
  - tatersolid 6y ago
    > C was the K&R book How could this be when zero implementations behaved in accordance with K&R? The authors and fans may have claimed it as a “spec”, but it never was a functional “spec” in the real world.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      That's the point. The language spec was the platonic ideal, and implementations were just imperfect realizations. There were actual languages that still have no implementations.