From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at   
      
   MitchAlsup  writes:   
   >   
   >anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) posted:   
   >   
   >> Thomas Koenig  writes:   
   >> >and it was a standards violation, anyway.   
   >>   
   >> That's hilarious.  C89 was three years old in 1992.  The majority of C   
   >> programs available in 1992 were started before ANSI C was released,   
   >> and thus contained code from before ANSI C.  And like today,   
   >> programmers are asked to spend time on other things than fixing things   
   >> that are not broken.   
   >   
   >If application vendors were subject to the same recall standards that   
   >the auto industry is subject, that might change. {Remember the Pinto}   
      
   I had not heard about "the Pinto" before, so I cannot remember it.   
   Searching for it, it seems that you mean the Ford Pinto which had fuel   
   system fires.   
      
   I don't think that a program that works as intended but does not   
   comply to a later-introduced standard is in the same position.   
      
   Actually, the regulations for cars only hold for newly sold cars.  All   
   the other cars can be as unsafe and poison the air as badly as when   
   they were introduced, and the Diesel emissions scandal (VW and many   
   other car makers) shows that they are actually allowed to poison the   
   air even more; at least in Austria none of the cars have been recalled   
   that produce more emissions than was allowed when the cars were sold.   
      
   Even for aircraft it is apparently enough to comply with the   
   regulations valid at the time of certification of the aircraft, with   
   fatal consequences for Chalk's Ocean Airways Flight 101.   
      
      
   - anton   
   --   
   'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'   
     Mitch Alsup,    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)