Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #7572 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C is fixed or not ? David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> - 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:03 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:17 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 16:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 09:06 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:05 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:12 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:02 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-07-04 10:17 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 11:37 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-04 08:01 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 17:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 12:01 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 19:20 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 07:53 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 22:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:33 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:28 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:17 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:37 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:21 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 00:09 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 07:59 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 23:52 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 09:30 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:16 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-07-07 11:13 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:23 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 19:41 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:15 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:42 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:44 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-06 23:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:23 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:32 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 10:27 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 19:41 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:19 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 09:24 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 23:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:04 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:52 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:47 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 01:59 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:01 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:57 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:03 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 08:19 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-12 00:31 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 19:39 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 06:06 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:14 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:11 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 17:05 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 06:39 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 12:45 +0200
POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-07 15:17 +0200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 11:21 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:07 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 16:01 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:12 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:33 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 23:49 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-03 07:32 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 15:06 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:08 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-10 16:09 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-11 06:20 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 22:36 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-07-11 16:18 +0000
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:01 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-07-14 23:05 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:30 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 11:00 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 13:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 02:34 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:30 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 01:31 +0100
Windows Posix Support (was Re: C is fixed or not ?) Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 01:06 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:50 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-13 17:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 03:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 07:02 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:04 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-06 09:25 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:20 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 14:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:11 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:26 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:22 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:36 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:56 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 02:15 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:31 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:29 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:34 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:20 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 10:47 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 11:07 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 14:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-13 07:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 21:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 14:29 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 22:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-15 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 15:00 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:08 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 16:23 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:50 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 17:13 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 00:26 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:23 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 04:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 12:22 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 16:14 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-17 08:01 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-16 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-17 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-19 01:14 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 00:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 22:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 20:58 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:09 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:24 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:38 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-07-16 11:46 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-16 14:53 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:41 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-15 01:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:47 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Oliver Jackson <chexmofo@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 20:10 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:35 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:45 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:10 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:44 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:58 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 15:59 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:03 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:16 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:42 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 15:19 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-04 17:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:26 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 19:52 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-05 08:09 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-05 16:04 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:07 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-07 16:29 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:09 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:01 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5rsg$mci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7699 |
James Kuyper wrote: > I'm agnostic about whether adding threading to the C > standard was a good idea, but I can certainly see why it might be > desirable to have a threading API that can be used on both Windows > and POSIX systems. > Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already and the Windows crowd has theirs, and you are making the assumption that something that works on both platforms is going to be liked/used by either of those groups, even knowing that the approaches are different? What are the chances! Should the C standard library recognize threads? Yes. Should it provide a whole API? Questionable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e16f784$0$22158$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7923 |
MikeP wrote: > Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already and the > Windows crowd has theirs Not quite. The only thing that stops a OS project from adding support for pthreads is their unwillingness to do so. Regarding Microsoft, they already provide suppoprt for pthreads. Therefore, this isn't a matter of "POSIX/Unix crowd" Vs "Windows crowd". This is a matter of a widely established and adopted international standard Vs an API taken from some proprietary library. And when defining an international standard, intentionally neglecting established international standards in favour of some proprietary code is not a good thing. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 10:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv75a7$laq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7964 |
On 07/08/2011 08:20 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: ... > pthreads is their unwillingness to do so. Regarding Microsoft, they already > provide suppoprt for pthreads. According to Larry Jones, they don't provide such support for native Windows programs, only for programs that run within the restrictions of their "POSIX subsystem". Do you agree that he's right about that? -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 11:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv76cd$sm2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7975 |
On 7/8/2011 10:47, James Kuyper wrote: > On 07/08/2011 08:20 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > ... >> pthreads is their unwillingness to do so. Regarding Microsoft, they already >> provide suppoprt for pthreads. > > According to Larry Jones, they don't provide such support for native > Windows programs, only for programs that run within the restrictions of > their "POSIX subsystem". Do you agree that he's right about that? Even using the term "native" is confusing! You have: - Kernel-land APIs - User-land APIs: - "Native" API (NTDLL.DLL) - "Windows" API (lots of .DLLs, the "basest" of which use the "native" API) - "POSIX" API (PSXDLL.DLL, which itself uses the "native" API) "Notepad" is _not_ a native Windows program. It is a program that natively works with Windows. :) I do believe that Mr. L. Jones meant this kind of "native." He'd _also_ be correct for the _other_ use of "native." But of course your news-reader filtering choices won't allow you to read this message. Good luck!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 14:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv7nd8$fn5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7964 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > MikeP wrote: > >> Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already and >> the Windows crowd has theirs > > Not quite. The only thing that stops a OS project from adding > support for pthreads is their unwillingness to do so. Regarding > Microsoft, they already provide suppoprt for pthreads. Therefore, > this isn't a matter of "POSIX/Unix crowd" Vs "Windows crowd". This > is a matter of a widely established and adopted international > standard Vs an API taken from some proprietary library. And when > defining an international standard, intentionally neglecting > established international standards in favour of some proprietary > code is not a good thing. > That they didn't choose it does not mean that they didn't consider it. Why don't you ask them why they chose other than pthreads? I think some people have already given indications of why, not the least of which is that just because something has some kind of standardization, that does not necessarily make it good or appropriate. Your posts on this seem so whiney instead of factual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-13 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf44cdaa-bea6-4f1c-8deb-f01b499b1884@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7923 |
On Jul 8, 4:00 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > > I'm agnostic about whether adding threading to the C > > standard was a good idea, but I can certainly see why it might be > > desirable to have a threading API that can be used on both Windows > > and POSIX systems. > > Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already and the > Windows crowd has theirs, and you are making the assumption that > something that works on both platforms is going to be liked/used by > either of those groups, even knowing that the approaches are different? > What are the chances! some people write portable code. i find it vaguely irritating that unix and windows have gratuitious incompatibilities in, say, sockets. If I could do the thready part of the program in some standard API and have it Just Work then I'd feel a strong compulsion to use that API. I could alos avoid learning two presumably subtly different thread approaches. Seems a win win to me. > Should the C standard library recognize threads? Yes. Should it provide a > whole API? Questionable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-14 21:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivo70k$v8d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8235 |
Nick Keighley wrote: > On Jul 8, 4:00 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >> James Kuyper wrote: > > >>> I'm agnostic about whether adding threading to the C >>> standard was a good idea, but I can certainly see why it might be >>> desirable to have a threading API that can be used on both Windows >>> and POSIX systems. >> >> Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already and >> the Windows crowd has theirs, and you are making the assumption that >> something that works on both platforms is going to be liked/used by >> either of those groups, even knowing that the approaches are >> different? What are the chances! > > some people write portable code. i find it vaguely irritating that > unix and windows have gratuitious incompatibilities in, say, sockets. > If I could do the thready part of the program in some standard API and > have it Just Work then I'd feel a strong compulsion to use that API. I > could alos avoid learning two presumably subtly different thread > approaches. Seems a win win to me. Well that's the THEORY behind programming language standard libraries, anyway. All it really is though, is yet another wrench in the machine. Better to program to the specific platform than some concoction that is half-way here and half-way there, IMO. The "portable code" mantra is more trouble than it is worth (again, IMO. Been there, done that). I think languages should strive to enable library development, but I don't think they should specify any libraries at all, as that is for ancillaries (groups, companies) to do. Standard libraries hinder progress rather than advance the state of the art. IMO. :) (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API, so why someone would want to use it on Windows escapes me. One could further on that track by asking why anyone would want to use C (the Unix PL) on Windows!). > >> Should the C standard library recognize threads? Yes. Should it >> provide a whole API? Questionable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-15 14:29 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <989n25Fv3rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8289 |
On 07/15/11 02:00 PM, MikeP wrote: > > (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API No, it isn't. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-14 22:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivodsa$u3a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8292 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/15/11 02:00 PM, MikeP wrote: >> >> (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API > > No, it isn't. Well it started out being that and still has that same flavor, that is the point: they belong together, a match made in... he That it is now a subset of POSIX is really unimportant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-15 11:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.23d406d54b21607cb911.20110715113102BST.87hb6nhm3d.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #8294 |
"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes: > Ian Collins wrote: >> On 07/15/11 02:00 PM, MikeP wrote: >>> >>> (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API >> >> No, it isn't. > > Well it started out being that I don't think so. Had you said "is influenced by" or "was developed to work closely with" or some such phrase I doubt there would be much objection, but "is" on its own suggests they are the same (or substantially the same) and they're not. The only part of the Unix API (the system call interface) that I can spot that went into the C standard library was signal(2). That's a tiny part of the library. Your argument is, presumably, that tighter system integration is more important than portability. There will be times when that's true and times when it won't be. As a general claim I think it's almost impossible to judge, but it dose not fly as a criticism of the C library because the presence of some standard functions does not force you to use them when there are more appropriate system-specific ones. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-15 21:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivqu71$d69$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8305 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes: > >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/15/11 02:00 PM, MikeP wrote: >>>> >>>> (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API >>> >>> No, it isn't. >> >> Well it started out being that > > I don't think so. Had you said "is influenced by" or "was developed > to work closely with" or some such phrase I doubt there would be much > objection, but "is" on its own suggests they are the same (or > substantially the same) and they're not. The only part of the Unix > API (the system call interface) that I can spot that went into the C > standard library was signal(2). That's a tiny part of the library. E.g. (what I was getting at): Unix has 'fopen', Windows has 'CreateFile'. > > Your argument is, presumably, that tighter system integration is more > important than portability. Not really (not that I don't or do agree with that). Standard libraries of programming languages notoriously suck. One is faced with that "holy portability" (and "performance trumps elegance") thing even when one need not be. That's fine if you need it, but if you don't, you don't. Not that platform-provided libraries are a panacea, but that I'd rather build something on top of that than on top of language-provided libraries because I feel that language-provided libraries are not adequate as the top-level of abstraction and if I have to build something on top of something anyway, I prefer to build on top of the platform API. YMMV: I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use my methods. > There will be times when that's true and > times when it won't be. As a general claim I think it's almost > impossible to judge, but it dose not fly as a criticism of the C > library because the presence of some standard functions does not > force you to use them when there are more appropriate system-specific > ones. I think the library committee and the language proper committee should not be one in the same (even if they have largely the same membership).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 15:00 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <98cd7nFv3qU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8333 |
On 07/16/11 02:49 PM, MikeP wrote: > Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "MikeP"<mp011011@some.org> writes: >> >>> Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 07/15/11 02:00 PM, MikeP wrote: >>>>> >>>>> (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API >>>> >>>> No, it isn't. >>> >>> Well it started out being that >> >> I don't think so. Had you said "is influenced by" or "was developed >> to work closely with" or some such phrase I doubt there would be much >> objection, but "is" on its own suggests they are the same (or >> substantially the same) and they're not. The only part of the Unix >> API (the system call interface) that I can spot that went into the C >> standard library was signal(2). That's a tiny part of the library. > > E.g. (what I was getting at): Unix has 'fopen', Windows has 'CreateFile'. Really? The Unix native functions are open() and creat(). >> Your argument is, presumably, that tighter system integration is more >> important than portability. > > Not really (not that I don't or do agree with that). Standard libraries > of programming languages notoriously suck. Have you ever tried to use say PHP, Python or Java without using their standard libraries? have you never used printf? > One is faced with that "holy > portability" (and "performance trumps elegance") thing even when one need > not be. That's fine if you need it, but if you don't, you don't. Not that > platform-provided libraries are a panacea, but that I'd rather build > something on top of that than on top of language-provided libraries > because I feel that language-provided libraries are not adequate as the > top-level of abstraction and if I have to build something on top of > something anyway, I prefer to build on top of the platform API. YMMV: I'm > not trying to persuade anyone to use my methods. Have you ever used platform-provided libraries in PHP, Python or Java? >> There will be times when that's true and >> times when it won't be. As a general claim I think it's almost >> impossible to judge, but it dose not fly as a criticism of the C >> library because the presence of some standard functions does not >> force you to use them when there are more appropriate system-specific >> ones. > > I think the library committee and the language proper committee should > not be one in the same (even if they have largely the same membership). The language committees have separate working groups for the core language and the libraries (at least that's the case with C++). The two can not work in isolation, some library components require language enhancements. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-15 23:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivr2s4$297$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8334 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/16/11 02:49 PM, MikeP wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "MikeP"<mp011011@some.org> writes: >>> >>>> Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> On 07/15/11 02:00 PM, MikeP wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API >>>>> >>>>> No, it isn't. >>>> >>>> Well it started out being that >>> >>> I don't think so. Had you said "is influenced by" or "was developed >>> to work closely with" or some such phrase I doubt there would be >>> much objection, but "is" on its own suggests they are the same (or >>> substantially the same) and they're not. The only part of the Unix >>> API (the system call interface) that I can spot that went into the C >>> standard library was signal(2). That's a tiny part of the library. >> >> E.g. (what I was getting at): Unix has 'fopen', Windows has >> 'CreateFile'. > > Really? The Unix native functions are open() and creat(). > And the C std library is probably adequate for abstracting them, for those who like that Unixy taste. We can go round and round for years but won't get anywhere because you think the std library is the best thing since apple pie and I think it sucks. If I was programming for Unix, I would surely build something on top of open and create just as I have built on top of CreateFile and friends. >>> Your argument is, presumably, that tighter system integration is >>> more important than portability. >> >> Not really (not that I don't or do agree with that). Standard >> libraries of programming languages notoriously suck. > > Have you ever tried to use say PHP, Python or Java without using their > standard libraries? No. > have you never used printf? Yes. > >> One is faced with that "holy >> portability" (and "performance trumps elegance") thing even when one >> need not be. That's fine if you need it, but if you don't, you >> don't. Not that platform-provided libraries are a panacea, but that >> I'd rather build something on top of that than on top of >> language-provided libraries because I feel that language-provided >> libraries are not adequate as the top-level of abstraction and if I >> have to build something on top of something anyway, I prefer to >> build on top of the platform API. YMMV: I'm not trying to persuade >> anyone to use my methods. > > Have you ever used platform-provided libraries in PHP, Python or Java? I don't use those. > >>> There will be times when that's true and >>> times when it won't be. As a general claim I think it's almost >>> impossible to judge, but it dose not fly as a criticism of the C >>> library because the presence of some standard functions does not >>> force you to use them when there are more appropriate >>> system-specific ones. >> >> I think the library committee and the language proper committee >> should not be one in the same (even if they have largely the same >> membership). > > The language committees have separate working groups for the core > language and the libraries (at least that's the case with C++). Well that is good news. Completely separate would be (would have been?) better, but maybe not for the boys club that those languages are. I'm not knocking it. > The > two can not work in isolation, some library components require > language enhancements. Well see. Why have only one group influencing the direction of the language proper? (rhetorical, as it is too late for C and it's processes to change).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 16:23 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <98ci4tFv3qU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8337 |
On 07/16/11 04:08 PM, MikeP wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: >> On 07/16/11 02:49 PM, MikeP wrote: >>> E.g. (what I was getting at): Unix has 'fopen', Windows has >>> 'CreateFile'. >> >> Really? The Unix native functions are open() and creat(). >> > > And the C std library is probably adequate for abstracting them, for > those who like that Unixy taste. We can go round and round for years but > won't get anywhere because you think the std library is the best thing > since apple pie and I think it sucks. If I was programming for Unix, I > would surely build something on top of open and create just as I have > built on top of CreateFile and friends. I hold no such opinion. The C standard library simply is. >>>> Your argument is, presumably, that tighter system integration is >>>> more important than portability. >>> >>> Not really (not that I don't or do agree with that). Standard >>> libraries of programming languages notoriously suck. >> >> Have you ever tried to use say PHP, Python or Java without using their >> standard libraries? > > No. Well you wouldn't get very far if you did. Part of the attraction of scripting languages and that abomination called Java is their continuously evolving, often huge, cross-platform libraries. >> have you never used printf? > > Yes. Ah, so you don't always roll your own? >> Have you ever used platform-provided libraries in PHP, Python or Java? > > I don't use those. Hint: you probably won't find one. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-15 23:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivr5a0$c22$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8339 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/16/11 04:08 PM, MikeP wrote: >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/16/11 02:49 PM, MikeP wrote: > >>>> E.g. (what I was getting at): Unix has 'fopen', Windows has >>>> 'CreateFile'. >>> >>> Really? The Unix native functions are open() and creat(). >>> >> >> And the C std library is probably adequate for abstracting them, for >> those who like that Unixy taste. We can go round and round for years >> but won't get anywhere because you think the std library is the best >> thing since apple pie and I think it sucks. If I was programming for >> Unix, I would surely build something on top of open and create just >> as I have built on top of CreateFile and friends. > > I hold no such opinion. The C standard library simply is. ... is not a good top-level abstraction. :) > >>>>> Your argument is, presumably, that tighter system integration is >>>>> more important than portability. >>>> >>>> Not really (not that I don't or do agree with that). Standard >>>> libraries of programming languages notoriously suck. >>> >>> Have you ever tried to use say PHP, Python or Java without using >>> their standard libraries? >> >> No. > > Well you wouldn't get very far if you did. Part of the attraction of > scripting languages and that abomination called Java is their > continuously evolving, often huge, cross-platform libraries. > >>> have you never used printf? >> >> Yes. > > Ah, so you don't always roll your own? It's a work in progress. "Any day now" I'll be able to jettison that one again, but for now I am using it (again). I used to have my own text windows to output to but then I decided to rework everything yet again so printf is again something I am using until all the code is brought back in, but for development only, not in prodution code. > >>> Have you ever used platform-provided libraries in PHP, Python or >>> Java? >> >> I don't use those. > > Hint: you probably won't find one. Java is a platform. Could say that about PHP too. I don't know about Python, as that sounds like it has more GP language goals (?).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 17:13 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <98cl24Fv3qU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8340 |
On 07/16/11 04:50 PM, MikeP wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: >> On 07/16/11 04:08 PM, MikeP wrote: >>> Ian Collins wrote: >> >>>> have you never used printf? >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Ah, so you don't always roll your own? > > It's a work in progress. "Any day now" I'll be able to jettison that one > again, but for now I am using it (again). > I used to have my own text windows to output to but then I decided to > rework everything yet again so printf is again something I am using until > all the code is brought back in, but for development only, not in > prodution code. Lucky you, I wish I had the time to reinvent wheels. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 00:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivr7eg$kaq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8341 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/16/11 04:50 PM, MikeP wrote: >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/16/11 04:08 PM, MikeP wrote: >>>> Ian Collins wrote: >>> >>>>> have you never used printf? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Ah, so you don't always roll your own? >> >> It's a work in progress. "Any day now" I'll be able to jettison that >> one again, but for now I am using it (again). >> I used to have my own text windows to output to but then I decided to >> rework everything yet again so printf is again something I am using >> until all the code is brought back in, but for development only, not >> in prodution code. > > Lucky you, I wish I had the time to reinvent wheels. For me it's a necessity, for where I'm traveling-to and what I'm traveling-in requires round, not square, wheels. It will not require jet engines though, that's a relief, because planes are scary. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 08:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87hb6msn7v.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #8340 |
"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes: > Ian Collins wrote: >> On 07/16/11 04:08 PM, MikeP wrote: >>> Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 07/16/11 02:49 PM, MikeP wrote: >> >>>>> E.g. (what I was getting at): Unix has 'fopen', Windows has >>>>> 'CreateFile'. >>>> >>>> Really? The Unix native functions are open() and creat(). >>>> >>> >>> And the C std library is probably adequate for abstracting them, for >>> those who like that Unixy taste. We can go round and round for years >>> but won't get anywhere because you think the std library is the best >>> thing since apple pie and I think it sucks. If I was programming for >>> Unix, I would surely build something on top of open and create just >>> as I have built on top of CreateFile and friends. >> >> I hold no such opinion. The C standard library simply is. > > ... is not a good top-level abstraction. :) It's not bad. I've managed to use it to write perfectly functional C on (at least - I'm almost certainly forgetting some): CP/CMS, MVS, VMS, QDOS, SMS/2, Linux and a custom OS. That's the whole idea of an abstraction. I would not like to have had to learn the underlying OS calls for each of these, cope with the complexities of the file systems, and then written my own code. Particularly when I then had to move programs from one to the other of these. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 03:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ivrig3$4s9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8343 |
Dr Nick wrote: > "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes: > >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/16/11 04:08 PM, MikeP wrote: >>>> Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> On 07/16/11 02:49 PM, MikeP wrote: >>> >>>>>> E.g. (what I was getting at): Unix has 'fopen', Windows has >>>>>> 'CreateFile'. >>>>> >>>>> Really? The Unix native functions are open() and creat(). >>>>> >>>> >>>> And the C std library is probably adequate for abstracting them, >>>> for those who like that Unixy taste. We can go round and round for >>>> years but won't get anywhere because you think the std library is >>>> the best thing since apple pie and I think it sucks. If I was >>>> programming for Unix, I would surely build something on top of >>>> open and create just as I have built on top of CreateFile and >>>> friends. >>> >>> I hold no such opinion. The C standard library simply is. >> >> ... is not a good top-level abstraction. :) > > It's not bad. I've managed to use it to write perfectly functional C > on (at least - I'm almost certainly forgetting some): CP/CMS, MVS, > VMS, QDOS, SMS/2, Linux and a custom OS. > > That's the whole idea of an abstraction. I would not like to have had > to learn the underlying OS calls for each of these, cope with the > complexities of the file systems, and then written my own code. > Particularly when I then had to move programs from one to the other of > these. Yeah, if you like the C API, that works. You could have been using something nicer (assuming you are a good library designer) and evolving though if you would have considered C just another platform. But then again, if you only have C to work with, "nice" doesn't belong in the same dialog. Move up a notch to C++ though, and you can create almost anything and with some elegance too. (Preaching to the choir, surely).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tyamr3e6.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #8346 |
"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes: > Dr Nick wrote: >> "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes: >> >>> ... is not a good top-level abstraction. :) >> >> It's not bad. I've managed to use it to write perfectly functional C >> on (at least - I'm almost certainly forgetting some): CP/CMS, MVS, >> VMS, QDOS, SMS/2, Linux and a custom OS. >> >> That's the whole idea of an abstraction. I would not like to have had >> to learn the underlying OS calls for each of these, cope with the >> complexities of the file systems, and then written my own code. >> Particularly when I then had to move programs from one to the other of >> these. > > Yeah, if you like the C API, that works. It's nothing to do with "liking" it, and it's not "that works". It's "that's all there is to it". > You could have been using something nicer (assuming you are a good > library designer) and evolving though if you would have considered C > just another platform. But then again, if you only have C to work > with, "nice" doesn't belong in the same dialog. No, I couldn't have "been using something nicer" (whatever that looks like - any suggestions for a library that is "nicer" and works on all the above OSs". I'd never have managed to write the code in the time available (and this is nothing to do with bad planning - sometimes there are external factors that mean that there was no need for some software yesterday and there is /now/) if I'd had to start on the raw application layer and build my own "nicer" library. I'm not even sure I had documentation or appropriate header files for the native interface. Some of that, as implied, was for myself. Some was for employers, so migrating the library backwards and forwards would have been problematical to say the least. > Move up a notch to C++ > though, and you can create almost anything and with some elegance > too. (Preaching to the choir, surely). So in one breath you are suggesting I cut out a huge chunk of the power of C, and in the other you're suggesting I move to something much more powerful. Most odd if you don't mind me saying so. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web