Re: encapsulating directory operations

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message
news:100hi99$260c5$1@dont-email.me...

On 20/05/2025 10:18, Keith Thompson wrote:

C90 will never be extended.

>
And for that reason it will always be valuable. Stability has a
value all its own.

Yeah, well said.

I've been working with C90 for almost 40 years.

Maybe I'm a slow learner, but so far I haven't seen anything
wrong with it. It's good enough to write an entire OS and
supporting tools - quibbling aside.

Maybe in the next 40 years I will learn enough about languages
that I can see why it so desperately needs a revamp as per
C99 etc.

In the meantime, I'm more interested in solving this problem
that someone else wrote about:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-you-leave-a-job-as-a-software-engineer/answer/
Jeff-Sturm-2

(I had a similar complaint, but never wrote it down or had the
ability to express it as well as this guy did).

The problems in the IT industry aren't going to be solved by
a new version of ISO C that supports edge-triggered, pre
and post-emptive multi-hyper-threaded apps with parallel
predictive circularly-redundant cyber-stalked channel-driven
variables or whatever they're peddling these days.

They're going to be solved by people actually understanding
the systems they support. And understanding some other
very very basic stuff. Like even understanding the definition
of "broken". "No-one else (that I've spoken to in the last
5 minutes) is complaining" is not the definition of "working fine".
Nor is "the IT department didn't inform us of any outage".

BFN. Paul.