Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #11845 > unrolled thread
| Started by | scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-10-18 05:20 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-11 23:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Dann Corbit <dcorbit@connx.com> - 2011-10-18 14:37 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 10:52 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 00:02 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Davy" <Bill@SynectixLtd.com> - 2011-10-19 08:57 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 02:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-19 13:41 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:04 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-19 15:32 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 09:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 20:46 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:06 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-19 20:49 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-19 19:04 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-21 16:56 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "sadsailor" <overboard@the.oceans> - 2011-10-21 16:37 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-21 13:30 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-22 07:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) - 2011-10-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-22 18:19 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 08:00 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:55 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 10:28 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 08:36 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:23 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-23 12:35 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-23 14:34 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-10-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 18:14 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 01:59 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-24 06:25 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-24 14:43 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 09:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:23 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 08:02 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 00:44 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 21:24 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-26 00:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 23:21 +1300
OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-29 06:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-10-29 21:18 +0200
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 03:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:17 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 06:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-28 00:23 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-27 23:57 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-28 00:20 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-29 23:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-30 12:42 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 10:46 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-01 23:20 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 12:39 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 13:45 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-02 08:49 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-11-30 21:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 22:59 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2011-11-30 22:09 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 11:20 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:21 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 01:22 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-01 10:18 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 04:57 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-12-01 13:38 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-01 13:47 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:10 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 17:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:35 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-01 02:53 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:07 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-04 00:35 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-03 18:28 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-30 14:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:15 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 12:21 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:29 +0100
Operator overloading extensions (Was re: OOP and C++ and C) "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-12-01 15:50 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-01 07:38 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 20:26 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:37 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:09 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-11-01 10:13 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 23:02 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 04:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:45 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 09:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 09:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 10:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 14:33 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:10 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:37 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:03 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-01 16:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-03 02:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:53 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 16:03 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 01:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 21:22 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 04:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-30 08:40 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:13 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:38 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 21:34 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:37 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 06:55 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 06:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 10:42 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 12:54 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:47 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 19:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:49 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 15:15 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 18:04 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 11:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:03 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:18 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:54 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 10:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:22 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 23:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:37 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 10:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:59 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 17:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:33 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:20 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-10-31 20:07 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 13:48 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 22:18 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 03:59 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 22:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 04:27 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 18:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:46 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 14:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:35 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 08:22 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-02 10:14 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:09 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 13:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:32 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 21:31 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-03 07:41 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 19:58 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-11-02 21:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 14:26 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 11:07 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 12:51 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-03 06:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 14:34 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-04 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-04 09:24 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 00:06 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-09 00:03 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 10:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 09:13 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 11:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 13:23 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-11 00:17 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:29 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:19 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 13:28 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:37 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 14:13 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 11:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 21:49 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:19 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 02:50 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-12 01:44 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 17:54 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-12 11:38 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-14 02:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-14 16:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 18:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 11:51 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 12:08 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 20:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 13:11 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:56 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:50 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 08:52 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-14 20:15 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 22:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-14 14:45 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:21 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:40 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:59 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-14 18:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:15 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 23:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 16:16 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 19:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 12:02 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 08:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 17:00 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 04:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:27 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-12 04:27 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-10 23:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 15:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-11 00:41 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 05:14 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 02:39 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 11:00 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-30 19:09 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:51 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 20:36 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-24 12:16 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 15:52 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 21:40 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-26 06:13 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:34 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-26 09:47 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-27 04:54 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-27 11:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-10-20 11:07 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-20 16:31 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-20 11:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-21 08:35 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-21 02:45 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:41 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:58 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:52 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-23 10:32 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:53 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-26 14:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-21 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20111021130723.160@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #11875 |
On 2011-10-18, Dann Corbit <dcorbit@connx.com> wrote: > C is close enough to the hardware to allow me to avoid writing assembly > in order to keep a program fast. Yet C is abstract enough to write > complicated ideas in a symbolic way in order to make the code easy to > maintain. > > C is the mother of the modern OO languages like C++ and Java. I would say that Pascal, Algol, BCPL and PL1 are the parents of C, and C++ is just a dialect of C which adds Simula 67 to the parentage. The core dictinctive C++ features are very similar to Simula, even in the terminology. Virtual functions, access specifiers like protected, etc. ``Simula 67 introduced objects, classes, subclasses, virtual methods, coroutines, discrete event simulation and features garbage collection.'' [Wikipedia] With no coroutines or garbage collection, C++ looks like a step backwards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-21 13:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3ra3a7d4n37vuc55t88tnehf6ouct1cv0d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #11942 |
Kaz Kylheku wrote: >I would say ... C++ is just a dialect of C which adds Simula 67 to the parentage. What a coincidence, Bjarne Stroustrup says the same: "C++ was designed to provide Simula’s facilities for program organization together with C’s efficiency and flexibility for systems programming" -- Roberto Waltman [ Please reply to the group, return address is invalid ]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-22 07:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32eda52c-9c71-40d4-bfe2-c3909945d7ae@u13g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11942 |
On Oct 21, 7:17 pm, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote: > > The core dictinctive C++ features are very similar to Simula, even > in the terminology. Virtual functions, access specifiers like protected, > etc. > > ``Simula 67 introduced objects, classes, subclasses, virtual methods, > coroutines, discrete event simulation and features garbage collection.'' > [Wikipedia] > > With no coroutines or garbage collection, C++ looks like a step backwards. > A language is a compromise between theoretical purity, efficiency, and compatibility. C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. It only added five of six keywords. You also very easily call routines written in C, or fiddle about with them to turn them into C++. It had a very catchy name. It could be implemented without too much fuss as a front end to C, and it was about as efficient as C. Coroutines and garbage collection were presumably rejected for this reason. It's very easy to propose a new language, and it's moderately easy to implement one. What's hard is to get a substantial number of users. Dennis Ritchie and Bjarne Strousup succeeded brilliantly, but Strousup wouldn't have succeeded without leveraging Ritchie's achievement, arguably unfairly (if C had been a brand of soda then doubtless Ritchie would have sued for billions, but the computer industry doesn't work like that).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-22 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j7uopv$iqt$2@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #11955 |
In article <32eda52c-9c71-40d4-bfe2-c3909945d7ae@u13g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> ...
>It's very easy to propose a new language, and it's moderately easy to
>implement one. What's hard is to get a substantial number of users.
>Dennis Ritchie and Bjarne Strousup succeeded brilliantly, but Strousup
>wouldn't have succeeded without leveraging Ritchie's achievement,
>arguably unfairly (if C had been a brand of soda then doubtless
>Ritchie would have sued for billions, but the computer industry
>doesn't work like that).
>
Correction: the computer industry *didn't* work like that.
--bks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-22 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20111022141246.741@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #11955 |
On 2011-10-22, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > It's very easy to propose a new language, and it's moderately easy to > implement one. What's hard is to get a substantial number of users. Getting users is a matter of historic accident, or of appealing to the masses using factors which are either nontechnical, or in fact are technical negatives. The programming language with the most users is most probably Basic. Most programmers can hardly name two other languages besides the one they (think they) know; they did not make a decision that could be called informed. MS-DOS had a substantial number of users. Q.E.D. Eat shit; a billion flies can't be wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 08:00 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <9ggi7aF5lhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11959 |
On 10/23/11 07:19 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2011-10-22, Malcolm McLean<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >> It's very easy to propose a new language, and it's moderately easy to >> implement one. What's hard is to get a substantial number of users. > > Getting users is a matter of historic accident, or of appealing to the masses > using factors which are either nontechnical, or in fact are technical > negatives. Languages gain users either through necessity to use a platform or technology (.NET and JavaScript[1] for example), utility (C, C++ and popular scripting languages) and specialised niches (Lisp and friends). The ones that live on are in the latter two categories. How many people will still be using .NET once its owners get board and move on? Languages that live on are those whose evolution isn't driven by one vendor. > The programming language with the most users is most probably Basic. Most > programmers can hardly name two other languages besides the one they (think > they) know; they did not make a decision that could be called informed. > > MS-DOS had a substantial number of users. Q.E.D. How many people us it now its owners are board and move on? [1] JavaScript should probably bi in the third category. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4EA4271A.36E55B79@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #11959 |
Kaz Kylheku wrote: > The programming language with the most users is most probably Basic. Which of its one hundred mutually incompatible varieties? -- When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55d93a0f-7da9-4156-9794-286f5bccf81d@h5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11955 |
On Oct 22, 3:57 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Oct 21, 7:17 pm, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote: > > > The core dictinctive C++ features are very similar to Simula, even > > in the terminology. Virtual functions, access specifiers like protected, > > etc. > > > ``Simula 67 introduced objects, classes, subclasses, virtual methods, > > coroutines, discrete event simulation and features garbage collection.'' > > [Wikipedia] > > > With no coroutines or garbage collection, C++ looks like a step backwards. > > A language is a compromise between theoretical purity, efficiency, and > compatibility. > > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. when! Stroustrup e1? I've been at it a decade or so and I don't consider myself completly familiar with C++. Template meta-programming anyone! > It only added five of six keywords. a damn sight more than that! this, public, private, protected, class, virtual, template, exception, catch, try, operator... > You also very easily call routines written in C, or > fiddle about with them to turn them into C++. It had a very catchy > name. It could be implemented without too much fuss as a front end to > C, and it was about as efficient as C. Coroutines and garbage > collection were presumably rejected for this reason. > > It's very easy to propose a new language, and it's moderately easy to > implement one. What's hard is to get a substantial number of users. > Dennis Ritchie and Bjarne Strousup succeeded brilliantly, but Strousup > wouldn't have succeeded without leveraging Ritchie's achievement, > arguably unfairly (if C had been a brand of soda then doubtless > Ritchie would have sued for billions, but the computer industry > doesn't work like that). thank <deity> imagine if mathematicians could sue... The Greeks would own the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.5236e92263604b356295.20111023213035BST.871uu3wivo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #11987 |
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes: > On Oct 22, 3:57 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> > wrote: <snip> >> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. > > when! Stroustrup e1? I've been at it a decade or so and I don't > consider myself completly familiar with C++. Template meta-programming > anyone! Agreed. >> It only added five of six keywords. > > a damn sight more than that! > > this, public, private, protected, class, virtual, template, exception, > catch, try, operator... ... new, delete, true, false, friend, typename, typeid, using, namespace, mutable, export, reinterpret_cast, const_cast, static_cast, dynamic_cast, explicit, throw... ...and it significantly changed the meaning of auto. I know you were not offering a fill list (and I doubt I have either) but the point is better made if the list is fuller. The journey from C to C++ has become quite an adventure. In the days if cfront, it was not much more than a stroll in the park. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87k47vo0ua.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org> |
| In reply to | #11987 |
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 22, 3:57 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> It only added five of six keywords.
>
> a damn sight more than that!
>
> this, public, private, protected, class, virtual, template, exception,
> catch, try, operator...
I don't think that "exception" is a keyword in C++.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 10:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j8189l$l03$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11955 |
On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: ... > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is the norm in the real world. I was already very familiar with C when I first learned C++. I immediately recognized the value of many of the new features offered by C++. I have a long history of rapidly acquiring new computer languages, and the amount of time it took me to learn C++ is an example of that - but the amount of time was a lot longer than a single day. It took longer than that for me just to finish reading a detailed description of the new features. > ... It only added five > of six keywords. I'm curious: which of the following C++ keywords are the "five or six" you were thinking of? When did you first learn of the keyword status of any of the other 26 keywords in this list? I've heard that 'const', 'volatile' and 'inline' were only added to C after borrowing them from C++, though I can't personally vouch for the truth of that assertion. None of the other items on this list has ever been a C keyword (though the asm keyword is marked in Annex J as a common C extension. asm bool catch class const const_cast dynamic_cast explicit export false friend inline mutable namespace new operator private protected public reinterpret_cast static_assert static_cast template this throw true try typeid typename using virtual volatile wchar_t -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef08ea76-a5ba-4886-8155-7e13dafea49f@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11990 |
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > ... > > > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... > > Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances. > I learnt it in a day. I bought a little book describing C++ for C programmers, and read it on the bus. By the time the bus journey had ended, I'd read the book and knew C++. However that was when it was still quite new, before it had ballooned into what it is now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j82p3s$34a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11992 |
"Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ef08ea76-a5ba-4886-8155-7e13dafea49f@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> ... >> > > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... >> > >Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances. > >I learnt it in a day. I bought a little book describing C++ for C >programmers, and read it on the bus. By the time the bus journey had >ended, I'd read the book and knew C++. > >However that was when it was still quite new, before it had ballooned >into what it is now. Almost anyone can pick up an acorn, but *not* after it growns into a 200 foot oak tree!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j83igp$6eu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11992 |
"Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ef08ea76-a5ba-4886-8155-7e13dafea49f@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> ... >> > > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... >> > >Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances. > >I learnt it in a day. I bought a little book describing C++ for C >programmers, and read it on the bus. By the time the bus journey had >ended, I'd read the book and knew C++. > >However that was when it was still quite new, before it had ballooned >into what it is now. Almost anyone can pick up an acorn, but *not* after it growns into a 200 foot oak tree!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 23:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j83igq$6eu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11992 |
"Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ef08ea76-a5ba-4886-8155-7e13dafea49f@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> ... >> > > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... >> > >Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances. > >I learnt it in a day. I bought a little book describing C++ for C >programmers, and read it on the bus. By the time the bus journey had >ended, I'd read the book and knew C++. > >However that was when it was still quite new, before it had ballooned >into what it is now. Almost anyone can pick up an acorn, but *not* after it growns into a 200 foot oak tree!!! -- +<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+ | Charles Richmond numerist@aquaporin4.com | +<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 12:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <moj8a71mrn5v9j2vcpm29rp3e8s5i2rtar@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #11990 |
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:28:05 -0400, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >... >> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... > >Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional >concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in >your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is >the norm in the real world. > >I was already very familiar with C when I first learned C++. I >immediately recognized the value of many of the new features offered by >C++. I have a long history of rapidly acquiring new computer languages, >and the amount of time it took me to learn C++ is an example of that - >but the amount of time was a lot longer than a single day. It took >longer than that for me just to finish reading a detailed description of >the new features. > >> ... It only added five >> of six keywords. > >I'm curious: which of the following C++ keywords are the "five or six" >you were thinking of? When did you first learn of the keyword status of >any of the other 26 keywords in this list? I've heard that 'const', >'volatile' and 'inline' were only added to C after borrowing them from >C++, though I can't personally vouch for the truth of that assertion. >None of the other items on this list has ever been a C keyword (though >the asm keyword is marked in Annex J as a common C extension. > >asm >bool >catch >class >const >const_cast >dynamic_cast >explicit >export >false >friend >inline >mutable >namespace >new >operator >private >protected >public >reinterpret_cast >static_assert >static_cast >template >this >throw >true >try >typeid >typename >using >virtual >volatile >wchar_t const and volatile were keywords in C89. wchar_t is a bit of a mix - it was a standard type in C89 (with one of the TCs), but not actually a keyword. inline was added to c99 (although it was a common extension).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 14:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j81kq9$dkm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11994 |
On 10/23/2011 01:35 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:28:05 -0400, James Kuyper ... >> ... I've heard that 'const', >> 'volatile' and 'inline' were only added to C after borrowing them from >> C++, though I can't personally vouch for the truth of that assertion. ... > const and volatile were keywords in C89. The rumored borrowing that I was talking about above was said to have occurred before standardization of C89, but I would assume that it was sometime after "C with Classes" evolved into "C++", in late 1983. > ... wchar_t is a bit of a mix - > it was a standard type in C89 (with one of the TCs), but not actually > a keyword. inline was added to c99 (although it was a common > extension). Correct. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 14:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j81mmr$qnc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11990 |
On 10/23/11 10:28 AM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > ... >> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... > > Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional > concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in > your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is > the norm in the real world. > > I was already very familiar with C when I first learned C++. I > immediately recognized the value of many of the new features offered by > C++. I have a long history of rapidly acquiring new computer languages, > and the amount of time it took me to learn C++ is an example of that - > but the amount of time was a lot longer than a single day. It took > longer than that for me just to finish reading a detailed description of > the new features. > I could see a person spending a day reading a tutorial on C++ for C programmers and come away with enough to write some basic C++ programs. They may be more using "C with Classes" then full C++. After all, it probably only takes an hour or two to learn how to move from C to C that is compatible with C++ (using prototypes, no implicit cast from void*, avoid keywords like class, etc.). At that point you can almost claim to be writing C++, add in a few basics like member functions and inheritance, a few basic template rules, and you are then writing C++. Maybe even have time for some simple stream I/O and it even starts to look like basic C++. In one day they aren't using much of STL, name spaces (except adding a using namespace std:) or other advance features.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 13:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1b7h3vfpza.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #11996 |
Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> writes: > On 10/23/11 10:28 AM, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> ... >>> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... >> >> Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional >> concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in >> your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is >> the norm in the real world. >> >> I was already very familiar with C when I first learned C++. I >> immediately recognized the value of many of the new features offered by >> C++. I have a long history of rapidly acquiring new computer languages, >> and the amount of time it took me to learn C++ is an example of that - >> but the amount of time was a lot longer than a single day. It took >> longer than that for me just to finish reading a detailed description of >> the new features. >> > > I could see a person spending a day reading a tutorial on C++ for C > programmers and come away with enough to write some basic C++ > programs. They may be more using "C with Classes" then full C++. After > all, it probably only takes an hour or two to learn how to move from C > to C that is compatible with C++ (using prototypes, no implicit cast > from void*, avoid keywords like class, etc.). At that point you can > almost claim to be writing C++, add in a few basics like member > functions and inheritance, a few basic template rules, and you are > then writing C++. Maybe even have time for some simple stream I/O and > it even starts to look like basic C++. > > In one day they aren't using much of STL, name spaces (except adding a > using namespace std:) or other advance features. I had the experience of having students ask if they could turn in assignments written in C++ instead of C, and receiving C programs with iostreams.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-23 18:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j823l0$jb2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11996 |
On 10/23/2011 02:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/23/11 10:28 AM, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> ... >>> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ... >> >> Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional >> concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in >> your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is >> the norm in the real world. ... > I could see a person spending a day reading a tutorial on C++ for C > programmers and come away with enough to write some basic C++ programs. > They may be more using "C with Classes" then full C++. After all, it > probably only takes an hour or two to learn how to move from C to C that > is compatible with C++ (using prototypes, no implicit cast from void*, > avoid keywords like class, etc.). At that point you can almost claim to > be writing C++, add in a few basics like member functions and > inheritance, a few basic template rules, and you are then writing C++. > Maybe even have time for some simple stream I/O and it even starts to > look like basic C++. > > In one day they aren't using much of STL, name spaces (except adding a > using namespace std:) or other advance features. A statement that "I've learned C++" would not be justified by that level of understanding.. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web