[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XForms] Dennis Ritchie is dead

From: T.C. Zhao
Subject: Re: [XForms] Dennis Ritchie is dead
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:39:15 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks for sharing. It is hilarious. Did not know Dennis was that funny. He certainly was one of the most influential people in the world of software and computers, and I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude for C and unix - the only place where you find simplicty and power.
Dennis, RIP.

From: Jens Thoms Toerring <address@hidden>
To: Development with and of XForms <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [XForms] Dennis Ritchie is dead

Hi Marcus,

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 08:23:33PM -0400, Marcus D. Leech wrote:
> Yes, if there ever was a giant upon whose shoulders we all stand,
> Dennis Ritchie was surely one of them.
> I haven't seen Dennis in over 20 years, but on the few occasions
> that I met him, and had a couple of beers with him,
>  he seemed like a genuinely-nice person, and the most unassuming
> "giant" one could ever possibly meet. The entire
>  IT/Software/Technology industry owes him a debt of gratitude so
> insanely large, and yet 99.9% don't even know who
>  he is.
> The news of his death has affected me personally today.  Not only
> because I've actually met the man, but because I learned
>  C and Unix "back in the beginning" (1979).  My life has been
> utterly shaped by having lucked into a job in 1979 where I got
>  to learn C from "The C Tutorial", and program on Unix systems.
> Goodnight, curly-braces man.  You'll be missed.

Thank you. I would very much have liked to meet him in person
as you did.

On a lighter note: one of the really funny things I stumbled
upon was an exchange (seems to have been in comp.std.c back
in 1998) with a reply by Dennis Ritchie:

| > You are right. It was nice back in the days when things like
| >
| > #if (sizeof(int) ==
| >
| > actually worked (on some compilers).
| Must have been before my time.
| Dennis

I guess there wasn't a lot further discussions after that;-)

And another gem I just found:

| From: Dennis Ritchie <address@hidden>
| Newsgroups: comp.std.c
| Subject: Re: Integer Sizes?
| Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 03:19:41 +0000
| Someone (well, OK, Nick) wrote:
| > ... No, that is not the issue.  You clearly have not thought of the
| > problem of handling external data formats, which was the rationale
| > for introducing the exact-width data types in the first place.
| >
| > A device driver or external file data object of 32 bits long will
| > contain those bits in a certain order.  There is no requirement for
| > that to be the same order that is used by C...
| >
| > The matter of byte ordering is too well-known to go into details;
| > it is common for the external value 1 when loaded as a uint32_t
| > to be 16777216.  I have used systems where both big-endian and
| > little-endian bit orders WITHIN A BYTE were possible....
| Maybe by the time of the C0X standard, things will be pinned
| down well enough that it will become possible actually to
| write a TCP/IP stack, or conceivably an entire operating
| system in C. One might even imagine that it runs on several
| different machine architectures.  A hope for the new milennium.
|      Dennis

While never having met him that makes it obvious to me that
he must have been a very unassuming person with an admirable
sense of humour.
                          Best regards, Jens
  \  Jens Thoms Toerring  ________      address@hidden
  \_______________________________      http://toerring.de

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]