Groups > comp.lang.c > #4783 > unrolled thread

C programming in 2011

Started by	Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com>
First post	2011-05-25 20:27 -0700
Last post	2011-05-26 18:02 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 150 — 40 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

  C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:27 -0700
    Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 22:33 -0500
    Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:58 -0700
      Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 21:06 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 23:24 -0500
    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 07:51 +0000
      Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:15 +0100
        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 06:53 -0400
          Re: C programming in 2011 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:12 +1200
        Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 00:39 +0100
          Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:38 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-01 22:34 +0100
              Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 21:42 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-02 00:33 +0100
      Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 03:41 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-28 00:46 +0000
      Re: C programming in 2011 Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:09 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 15:07 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-27 07:42 +0000
        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-27 07:30 -0400
      Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 01:15 +0300
        Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 22:24 +0000
          Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 16:08 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 23:47 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-28 16:58 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:49 -0700
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-29 11:13 +0000
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Jorge <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> - 2011-06-04 08:05 -0700
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-04 16:20 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 14:35 +0100
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:49 -0700
                      OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 16:13 -0500
                        Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-05-30 12:17 -0400
                          Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 12:52 -0500
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 23:58 +0100
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-30 14:42 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-30 17:40 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2011-05-30 22:38 +0200
                      Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-30 00:38 +0100
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:14 +0300
                Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-29 06:55 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:47 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 15:02 +0300
          Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:01 +0300
            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-30 08:51 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-31 01:54 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 12:00 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 16:44 +0000
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:43 -0700
    Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:13 +0100
    Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:04 +0200
      Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:21 +0200
        Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 17:23 +0200
          Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 19:15 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:29 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:10 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-26 17:35 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:53 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-26 11:13 -0700
                  Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 21:57 -0400
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:13 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:06 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 17:57 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 11:31 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 20:43 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 14:53 -0700
          Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:03 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 01:59 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 02:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 06:36 -0400
                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 05:57 -0700
                    Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 09:23 -0400
                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 07:50 -0700
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:41 -0700
                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 01:46 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-01 10:07 +0000
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 04:12 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 07:46 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-01 17:53 +0000
                                Re: C programming in 2011 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-06-01 16:28 -0400
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:28 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 21:24 -0600
                            Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 10:04 -0400
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 08:21 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:37 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:55 -0400
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:52 -0700
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:00 +0100
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:19 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:53 -0400
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:55 -0700
                              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:41 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:12 +0200
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:28 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:38 -0700
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 01:00 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 09:13 +0000
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 02:52 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 11:41 +0000
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 05:53 -0700
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 06:49 -0700
                                          Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 14:18 +0000
                                          Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-02 21:02 +0000
                                            Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 23:55 -0700
                                              Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 08:37 +0000
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-03 06:49 -0400
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 11:52 +0000
                                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 11:11 -0700
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 18:23 +0000
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-03 18:59 +0000
                                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 19:48 +0000
                                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:02 -0700
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 12:19 -0700
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 13:40 -0700
                                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:11 -0700
                                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:24 -0700
                                                        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:34 -0700
                                                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 17:10 -0700
                                                            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 17:34 -0700
                                                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-04 09:47 -0400
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 10:02 -0400
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-02 12:17 +0000
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 08:48 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 10:35 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.jpem8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 23:32 -0500
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 00:12 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.5k8u2@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 05:18 -0500
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 08:16 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 18:06 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.zourz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 21:25 -0500
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 01:14 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.donaz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 04:36 -0500
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 09:02 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.k6ruq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 18:36 -0500
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 10:14 -0700
                        Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-31 19:56 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 14:54 +0200
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 13:07 +0000
                            Re: C programming in 2011 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-01 14:10 -0400
                              Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 19:58 -0400
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:07 +0000
                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 09:29 -0400
                        Re: C programming in 2011 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-06-07 02:18 -0400
                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 09:31 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-06-09 14:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-01 02:35 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 21:57 +0200
              Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 22:03 +0200
    Re: C programming in 2011 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 12:27 -0400
    Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:02 +0100

Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →

#4783 — C programming in 2011

From	Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-25 20:27 -0700
Subject	C programming in 2011
Message-ID	<d56e63ba-a524-4b85-8450-b69efca54d5c@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

Hi All,

Many moons ago I cut C code for a living, primarily while maintaining
a POP3 server that supported a wide range of OSs (Linux, *BSD, HPUX,
VMS ...).

I'm planning to polish the rust off my C skills and learn a bit about
language implementation by coding a simple FORTH in C.

But I'm wondering how (or whether?) have things changed in the C world
since 2000.  When I think C, I think ...

1. comp.lang.c
2. ANSI C wherever possible (but C89 as C99 isn't that widely
supported)
3. `gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic` in lieu of static analysis tools
4. Emacs
5. Ctags
6. Autoconf + make (and see point 2 for VMS, HP-UX etc. goodness)

Can anyone who's been writing in C for the past eleven years let me
know what (if anything ;-) ) has changed over the years?

(In other news, holy crap, I've been doing this for more than a
decade).

--
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420 817 082 | web: http://www.fluidscape.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4784

From	Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-25 22:33 -0500
Message-ID	<irkhm9$284$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#4783

On 5/25/2011 10:27 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
> ...When I think C, I think ...
>
> ...
> 2. ANSI C wherever possible (but C89 as C99 isn't that widely
> supported)
> 3. `gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic` in lieu of static analysis tools
> ...

Agreed. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4786

From	Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-25 20:58 -0700
Message-ID	<20f79c3c-e536-47c1-ac6e-4a71dff0afaa@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#4783

>   Can this be used on, say, Microsoft Windows? (I know that
>   make is available for Windows. I referred to Autoconf.)

Only via Cygwin (and then, you'd better bundle shtool).  But it works
most everywhere else ... and where it doesn't (e.g. Windows) there's
always hand-crafted Makefiles.  At least that's the way I used to do
it back in the day.

--
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420 817 082 | web: http://www.fluidscape.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4787

From	Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-25 21:06 -0700
Message-ID	<7cc4375c-86f9-40aa-9cc6-aa0168612371@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#4786

On May 26, 1:58 pm, Duncan Bayne <dhgba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   Can this be used on, say, Microsoft Windows? (I know that
> >   make is available for Windows. I referred to Autoconf.)
>
> Only via Cygwin (and then, you'd better bundle shtool).  But it works
> most everywhere else ... and where it doesn't (e.g. Windows) there's
> always hand-crafted Makefiles.  At least that's the way I used to do
> it back in the day.

In fact, thinking back, I think the way we did it for the
aforementioned POP3 server was to have a Visual C++ 6.0 solution for
building on Windows, Autoconf for most other OSs, plus maybe custom
Makefiles?  I think that most of us used Windows as a dev platform,
some (including me) used Linux, and one chap some sort of BSD.

As you can probably tell, my memory of that project is a little
fuzzy :-)

--
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420 817 082 | web: http://www.fluidscape.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4788

From	Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-25 23:24 -0500
Message-ID	<irkkmb$g2i$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#4787

On 5/25/2011 11:06 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
> In fact, thinking back, I think the way we did it for the
> aforementioned POP3 server was to have a Visual C++ 6.0 solution for
> building on Windows, Autoconf for most other OSs, plus maybe custom
> Makefiles?  I think that most of us used Windows as a dev platform,
> some (including me) used Linux, and one chap some sort of BSD.
>
> As you can probably tell, my memory of that project is a little
> fuzzy :-)

I seem to recall TinyMUX having a similar strategy.  It might bring back 
some memories for you, should you choose to indulge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4792

From	Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date	2011-05-26 07:51 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnits1k7.2tt.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to	#4783

On 2011-05-26, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Many moons ago I cut C code for a living, primarily while maintaining
> a POP3 server that supported a wide range of OSs (Linux, *BSD, HPUX,
> VMS ...).

Oh, what was the name of that server? I'd like to know...

> I'm planning to polish the rust off my C skills and learn a bit about
> language implementation by coding a simple FORTH in C.
>
> But I'm wondering how (or whether?) have things changed in the C world
> since 2000.  When I think C, I think ...

I've been trying to shake the rust off of me for some time, last time I
did any real serious programming was back in college about 10 years ago.

> 1. comp.lang.c

I'm new here myself, joined a few months ago. Seems like a friendly and
helpful group most of the time.

Which reminds me, I should thank everyone who answered my query here.
Making my code more portable didn't only make my program work on Sparc
and PPC, it also made the coding as a whole a heck of a lot easier.

> 2. ANSI C wherever possible (but C89 as C99 isn't that widely
> supported)

I tend to stick to C99 as it has many good features that I missed in old
C. It really is an improvement IMHO.

> 3. `gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic` in lieu of static analysis tools

I tend to use 'gcc -std=gnu99 -Wall -Werror' as I mostly develop for
Linux/GNU, but I avoid gcc-specific constructs where I can.

> 4. Emacs

Vi IMproved for me, but whatever works. The Linux kernel folks seem not
too fond of emacs' default layout for C though, just saying...

> 5. Ctags

Good stuff. ^^

> 6. Autoconf + make (and see point 2 for VMS, HP-UX etc. goodness)

I have to figure out autoconf someday...

-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4794

From	Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
Date	2011-05-26 11:15 +0100
Message-ID	<6B+A4OHxgi3NFAgZ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
In reply to	#4792

In message <slrnits1k7.2tt.angel+news@pearlgates.net>, Angel
<angel+news@spamcop.net> writes
>> 2. ANSI C wherever possible (but C89 as C99 isn't that widely
>> supported)
>
>I tend to stick to C99 as it has many good features that I missed in old
>C. It really is an improvement IMHO.

Good luck.... most compilers do NOT support C99. Those that *claim* to
only support parts of it.

Most areas of the industry tend to avoid C99 all together.





-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4796

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date	2011-05-26 06:53 -0400
Message-ID	<irlbek$7s7$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#4794

On 05/26/2011 06:15 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message <slrnits1k7.2tt.angel+news@pearlgates.net>, Angel
> <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes
>>> 2. ANSI C wherever possible (but C89 as C99 isn't that widely
>>> supported)
>>
>> I tend to stick to C99 as it has many good features that I missed in old
>> C. It really is an improvement IMHO.
> 
> Good luck.... most compilers do NOT support C99. Those that *claim* to
> only support parts of it.

It's true that very few compilers fully support C99, But it's also true
that compilers which support most of the new features of C99 are quite
commonplace nowadays.

-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4844

From	Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Date	2011-05-27 09:12 +1200
Message-ID	<947u1uF9stU4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#4796

On 05/26/11 10:53 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 06:15 AM, Chris H wrote:
>> In message<slrnits1k7.2tt.angel+news@pearlgates.net>, Angel
>> <angel+news@spamcop.net>  writes
>>>> 2. ANSI C wherever possible (but C89 as C99 isn't that widely
>>>> supported)
>>>
>>> I tend to stick to C99 as it has many good features that I missed in old
>>> C. It really is an improvement IMHO.
>>
>> Good luck.... most compilers do NOT support C99. Those that *claim* to
>> only support parts of it.
>
> It's true that very few compilers fully support C99, But it's also true
> that compilers which support most of the new features of C99 are quite
> commonplace nowadays.

Not to mention those that claim to support it, do.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4962

From	Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com>
Date	2011-05-29 00:39 +0100
Message-ID	<irs13s$6k3$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#4794

On 2011-05-26 11:15:13 +0100, Chris H said:

> In message <slrnits1k7.2tt.angel+news@pearlgates.net>, Angel
> <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes
>>> 2. ANSI C wherever possible (but C89 as C99 isn't that widely
>>> supported)
>> 
>> I tend to stick to C99 as it has many good features that I missed in old
>> C. It really is an improvement IMHO.
> 
> Good luck.... most compilers do NOT support C99. Those that *claim* to
> only support parts of it.
> 
> Most areas of the industry tend to avoid C99 all together.

Just ditch GCC for Clang and your life will improve markedly. Plus 
Clang's static analyser is awesome.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5195

From	Noob <root@127.0.0.1>
Date	2011-06-01 17:38 +0200
Message-ID	<is5md4$hci$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#4962

Nizumzen wrote:

> Just ditch GCC for Clang and your life will improve markedly.
> Plus Clang's static analyser is awesome.

Steve ? Is that you ?!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5239

From	Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com>
Date	2011-06-01 22:34 +0100
Message-ID	<is6b8a$e3b$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#5195

On 2011-06-01 16:38:17 +0100, Noob said:

> Nizumzen wrote:
> 
>> Just ditch GCC for Clang and your life will improve markedly.
>> Plus Clang's static analyser is awesome.
> 
> Steve ? Is that you ?!

It might sound a bit like that but I seriously don't get the problem 
with Clang. It is BSD licensed, supports all of C99 except for the 
floating point #pragmas and works on multiple OS's and has a static 
analyser. What isn't to like?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5240

From	Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date	2011-06-01 21:42 +0000
Message-ID	<slrniudcie.38c.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to	#5239

On 2011-06-01, Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
> On 2011-06-01 16:38:17 +0100, Noob said:
>
>> Nizumzen wrote:
>> 
>>> Just ditch GCC for Clang and your life will improve markedly.
>>> Plus Clang's static analyser is awesome.
>> 
>> Steve ? Is that you ?!
>
> It might sound a bit like that but I seriously don't get the problem 
> with Clang. It is BSD licensed, supports all of C99 except for the 
> floating point #pragmas and works on multiple OS's and has a static 
> analyser. What isn't to like?

That varies from person to person no doubt. At first glance, my dislike
would be that it doesn't support Sparc64 or PowerPC architectures.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5243

From	Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com>
Date	2011-06-02 00:33 +0100
Message-ID	<is6i7p$t76$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#5240

On 2011-06-01 22:42:38 +0100, Angel said:

> On 2011-06-01, Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-06-01 16:38:17 +0100, Noob said:
>> 
>>> Nizumzen wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just ditch GCC for Clang and your life will improve markedly.
>>>> Plus Clang's static analyser is awesome.
>>> 
>>> Steve ? Is that you ?!
>> 
>> It might sound a bit like that but I seriously don't get the problem
>> with Clang. It is BSD licensed, supports all of C99 except for the
>> floating point #pragmas and works on multiple OS's and has a static
>> analyser. What isn't to like?
> 
> That varies from person to person no doubt. At first glance, my dislike
> would be that it doesn't support Sparc64 or PowerPC architectures.

Valid reason. Time will tell if CPU support increases dramatically. 
With the FreeBSD devs interested in it I would guess that one of their 
top priorities would be to increase the number of supported 
architectures.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4795

From	Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-26 03:41 -0700
Message-ID	<c7e647c9-286e-435a-bbae-11b1e265a578@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#4792

> Oh, what was the name of that server? I'd like to know...

DPOP.

> Vi IMproved for me, but whatever works. The Linux kernel folks seem not
> too fond of emacs' default layout for C though, just saying...

The only oddity I've noticed is indenting in loops, like:

while (foo)
  {
    bar();
  }

> I have to figure out autoconf someday...

Let me know when you do ;-)  I've figured out just enough to do what I
need, & nothing more :-)

--
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420 817 082 | web: http://www.fluidscape.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

--
undefined

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4888

From	Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
Date	2011-05-28 00:46 +0000
Message-ID	<slrniu0hfb.gtj.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>
In reply to	#4795

On Thu, 2011-05-26, Duncan Bayne wrote:
...
>> Vi IMproved for me, but whatever works. The Linux kernel folks seem not
>> too fond of emacs' default layout for C though, just saying...
>
> The only oddity I've noticed is indenting in loops, like:
>
> while (foo)
>   {
>     bar();
>   }

That is indeed a Gnu oddity, and probably the default in Emacs.
You should ask it to use one of its other builtin styles or
(in my case) a variation of one of them:

    (require 'cc-mode)
    (c-add-style "bsd4" '("bsd" (c-basic-offset . 4)))
    (setq c-default-style "bsd4")

>> I have to figure out autoconf someday...
>
> Let me know when you do ;-)  I've figured out just enough to do what I
> need, & nothing more :-)

The need to support odd Unixes is smaller today than in 2000.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .  .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4843

From	Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>
Date	2011-05-26 14:09 -0700
Message-ID	<9f315eea-dc95-482a-9265-377129416d16@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#4792

On May 26, 12:51 am, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-26, Duncan Bayne <dhgba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Many moons ago I cut C code for a living, primarily while maintaining
> > a POP3 server that supported a wide range of OSs (Linux, *BSD, HPUX,
> > VMS ...).
>
> Oh, what was the name of that server? I'd like to know...
>
> > I'm planning to polish the rust off my C skills and learn a bit about
> > language implementation by coding a simple FORTH in C.
>
> > But I'm wondering how (or whether?) have things changed in the C world
> > since 2000.  When I think C, I think ...
>
> I've been trying to shake the rust off of me for some time, last time I
> did any real serious programming was back in college about 10 years ago.
>
> > 1. comp.lang.c
>
> I'm new here myself, joined a few months ago. Seems like a friendly and
> helpful group most of the time.
>
> Which reminds me, I should thank everyone who answered my query here.
> Making my code more portable didn't only make my program work on Sparc
> and PPC, it also made the coding as a whole a heck of a lot easier.
>

The right wing religious nuts that roam this forum apparently haven't
gotten to you yet.

Chad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4849

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date	2011-05-26 15:07 -0700
Message-ID	<lnfwo1unea.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to	#4843

Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 26, 12:51 am, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Which reminds me, I should thank everyone who answered my query here.
>> Making my code more portable didn't only make my program work on Sparc
>> and PPC, it also made the coding as a whole a heck of a lot easier.
>>
>
> The right wing religious nuts that roam this forum apparently haven't
> gotten to you yet.

What??

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4869

From	Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date	2011-05-27 07:42 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnituleg.2sa.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to	#4843

On 2011-05-26, Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 12:51?am, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm new here myself, joined a few months ago. Seems like a friendly and
>> helpful group most of the time.
>>
>> Which reminds me, I should thank everyone who answered my query here.
>> Making my code more portable didn't only make my program work on Sparc
>> and PPC, it also made the coding as a whole a heck of a lot easier.
>
> The right wing religious nuts that roam this forum apparently haven't
> gotten to you yet.

I've been on news.admin.net-abuse.email and alt.religion.scientology.
Trust me, this group is paradise compared to them. :-)


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4870

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date	2011-05-27 07:30 -0400
Message-ID	<iro219$hcp$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#4843

On 05/26/2011 05:09 PM, Chad wrote:
...
> The right wing religious nuts that roam this forum apparently haven't
> gotten to you yet.

Who in the world are you talking about?
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →

csiph-web

C programming in 2011

Contents

#4783 — C programming in 2011

#4784

#4786

#4787

#4788

#4792

#4794

#4796

#4844

#4962

#5195

#5239

#5240

#5243

#4795

#4888

#4843

#4849

#4869

#4870