Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24771 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200 |
| Last post | 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 386 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-23 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 21:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 14:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-23 22:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-08-23 16:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 09:33 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 13:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-26 02:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 00:19 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-27 00:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 13:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language CRNG <Spam@uce.gov> - 2012-08-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 18:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 15:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 19:04 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 19:14 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:03 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 18:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:08 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:41 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 02:58 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 15:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 06:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-24 00:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:18 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 09:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:53 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 03:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:43 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 03:30 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:11 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:10 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 02:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:59 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:28 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:22 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:31 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 01:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 22:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 04:27 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-01 11:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-09-02 00:52 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:21 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:59 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:55 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 00:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:17 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 06:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:58 -0600
Alternatives to Windows APIs in Metro style apps "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-24 12:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 01:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-27 20:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 17:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:25 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:35 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:13 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 09:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 05:05 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 01:16 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-28 20:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 22:29 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 23:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 17:24 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:37 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 00:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 02:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 10:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 13:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 07:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:20 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 12:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:51 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:32 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 19:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 20:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:06 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-29 08:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:52 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:27 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-29 20:00 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 16:36 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 03:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 21:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 04:00 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 13:55 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 13:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 23:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:43 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 03:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 08:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 05:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 14:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 06:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 01:04 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 12:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 17:26 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 08:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-31 12:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-31 20:17 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-31 14:41 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-01 00:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:48 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-02 20:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 17:07 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:49 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-09-03 02:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-03 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 12:16 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 12:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-04 20:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 08:26 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 13:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 15:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 16:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 17:01 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 17:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 21:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:06 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:07 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:36 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-02 20:38 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-03 11:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-01 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 12:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 12:41 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-01 11:54 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 20:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 08:55 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-04 09:25 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 17:50 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 19:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 22:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 22:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-05 07:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:30 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-06 15:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 00:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 11:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:44 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 18:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 01:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 22:45 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 05:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 14:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 07:16 -0700
Re: Reâ: â¬Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 17:39 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 10:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 22:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-09 00:24 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 20:47 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:22 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:40 +0300
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-10 17:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-11 11:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:18 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:11 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-06 16:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 02:27 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-08 09:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 01:23 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-10 10:48 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-02 15:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 21:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:55 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-01 21:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 02:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:07 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 11:57 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-31 11:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-31 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:54 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 08:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 14:57 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-28 21:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 22:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 09:40 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:01 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language timprince <tprince@computer.org> - 2012-08-25 23:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 20:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:24 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 10:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Tim Prince <tprince@nospamcomputer.org> - 2012-08-26 11:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 13:53 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 08:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 01:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 11:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 04:07 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 13:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 09:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 16:36 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 13:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 10:03 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:12 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 12:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 19:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:34 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:26 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 02:53 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 04:37 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 05:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 15:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-26 15:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:38 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 10:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 02:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 20:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 10:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 03:52 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 12:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:01 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:33 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 11:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 14:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:30 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-26 22:43 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 00:32 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 01:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:00 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 10:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:14 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 10:56 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:40 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 04:05 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 15:13 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-28 14:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 17:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:45 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 00:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 15:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2012-08-27 00:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-13 19:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-13 13:32 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000
Page 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
| From | timprince <tprince@computer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 23:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a9tivrFaenU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #24964 |
On 8/25/2012 7:48 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > What exactly is "C/C++"? There no such language. C and C++ are two > distinct, but closely related, languages. > > As for Microsoft's support for them, yes, they have a C compiler, but it > doesn't support the C99 or C11 standard. I believe that they use much > more C++ than C in implementing their own software (Windows, etc.). > > I'm not going to say that they've "abandoned" C, but they certainly > aren't showing much enthusiasm for it these days. > Speculation that one day Microsoft might support the intersection of C99 and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no for(int i;..... Besides, no interoperable Fortran (yet). For the first time, there's auto-vectorization (only for SSE2 and AVX architectures). -- Tim Prince
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntxvqe291.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #24974 |
timprince <tprince@computer.org> writes:
[...]
> Speculation that one day Microsoft might support the intersection of C99
> and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No
> restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no
> for(int i;.....
C++ doesn't have "restrict".
The lack of "for (int i;, ...)" is a little surprising, but I think I
read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 02:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k1cj5h$116$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #24975 |
On 8/25/2012 10:55 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > timprince <tprince@computer.org> writes: > [...] >> Speculation that one day Microsoft might support the intersection of C99 >> and C++ isn't holding up with my new (today) installation of VS2012. No >> restrict, not even with the documented proprietary alternative, no >> for(int i;..... > > C++ doesn't have "restrict". > > The lack of "for (int i;, ...)" is a little surprising, but I think I > read somewhere that they're planning to support it later. > well, at least they have "long long"...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 10:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k1cnng$o0t$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24975 |
Le 26/08/12 05:55, Keith Thompson a écrit : > I think I > read somewhere that they're planning to support it later. You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true that changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented the C standard, 12 years after its publication.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 03:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1cpad$rsd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24998 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 26/08/12 05:55, Keith Thompson a écrit : >> I think I >> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later. > > You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true > that changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented > the C standard, 12 years after its publication. Maybe there is no need to because very few develop with C on Windows? Those who do use the C subset available through C++ and find it adequate? What features of the C standard are missing and who wants to *use* them? It's one thing to criticize that the standard is not implemented while there is great need by developers for the features, but quite another to criticize just "for standards sake", as if ISO decree were more important than actual developer needs/desires. Statistics please. What C features are developers targeting Windows clamouring for and which developers and how many developers? C standard compliance just for compliance sake is wasted effort?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Prince <tprince@nospamcomputer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 11:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a9us1hFa55U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25002 |
On 08/26/2012 05:13 AM, Ansel wrote: > jacob navia wrote: >> Le 26/08/12 05:55, Keith Thompson a écrit : >>> I think I >>> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later. >> >> You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true >> that changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented >> the C standard, 12 years after its publication. > > Maybe there is no need to because very few develop with C on Windows? Those > who do use the C subset available through C++ and find it adequate? What > features of the C standard are missing and who wants to *use* them? It's > one thing to criticize that the standard is not implemented while there is > great need by developers for the features, but quite another to criticize > just "for standards sake", as if ISO decree were more important than actual > developer needs/desires. Statistics please. What C features are developers > targeting Windows clamouring for and which developers and how many > developers? C standard compliance just for compliance sake is wasted effort? > > We have plenty of applications which don't need to be "ported" between operating systems (or at least the non-portabilities can be localized), when there are standard-compliant compilers available. Perhaps you don't consider portable use of C99 features useful in OpenMP (and in certain other threading models, such as Cilk) to be a suitable standard C topic. Fortunately, others on this forum are open to considering Windows as an eligible platform to support C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnipc5e5og.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25022 |
Tim Prince <tprince@nospamcomputer.org> writes:
> On 08/26/2012 05:13 AM, Ansel wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> Le 26/08/12 05:55, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>>> I think I
>>>> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later.
>>>
>>> You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true
>>> that changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented
>>> the C standard, 12 years after its publication.
As far as I know, I have made this particular statement (that
Microsoft is planning to support "for (int i;, ...)" in C; jacob
snipped the relevant part) just once, or perhaps twice. I fail to
see how this is "too many times".
As for Microsoft not implementing the (now officially obsolete)
C99 standard 12+ years after its publication, that's absolutely
correct, and I've never stated or implied otherwise.
jacob apparently has decided that he knows what I think, and will
not change his mind in the face of direct evidence that he's wrong.
Which is why I don't respond to him directly in this newsgroup,
but I felt that this particular nonsense called for a correction.
[snip]
> We have plenty of applications which don't need to be "ported" between
> operating systems (or at least the non-portabilities can be localized),
> when there are standard-compliant compilers available.
> Perhaps you don't consider portable use of C99 features useful in OpenMP
> (and in certain other threading models, such as Cilk) to be a suitable
> standard C topic.
> Fortunately, others on this forum are open to considering Windows as an
> eligible platform to support C.
Exactly. Microsoft's lack of support for C99 and C11 makes it
more difficult (not impossible, just more difficult) to write
portable modern C that will run on a wide variety of systems.
(Yes, there are Windows C compilers other than Microsoft's; not
everyone is willing and/or able to use them.) Thus Microsoft's
decision not to support C past C90 have an impact on the entire C
programming community. Mentioning that does not constitute support
for Microsoft or opposition to C99 or C11.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 21:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1eqvb$q78$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25033 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Exactly. Microsoft's lack of support for C99 and C11 makes it > more difficult (not impossible, just more difficult) to write > portable modern C that will run on a wide variety of systems. > (Yes, there are Windows C compilers other than Microsoft's; not > everyone is willing and/or able to use them.) Thus Microsoft's > decision not to support C past C90 have an impact on the entire C > programming community. Mentioning that does not constitute support > for Microsoft or opposition to C99 or C11. That is a very weak stance. Maybe *you* know the statistics that I called for in a prior post, but if you don't give them (a link is adequate), then you little to squawk about. All I hear is "has to completely support the standard". Where is the list of functionalities that is so sorely lacking, along with a quantification and qualification of the need for them? Anything less is just hot air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 22:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1eu1u$vjg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25022 |
Tim Prince wrote: > On 08/26/2012 05:13 AM, Ansel wrote: >> jacob navia wrote: >>> Le 26/08/12 05:55, Keith Thompson a écrit : >>>> I think I >>>> read somewhere that they're planning to support it later. >>> >>> You have been telling this too many times. And even if it was true >>> that changes nothing on the fact that they still have,'t implemented >>> the C standard, 12 years after its publication. >> >> Maybe there is no need to because very few develop with C on >> Windows? Those who do use the C subset available through C++ and >> find it adequate? What features of the C standard are missing and >> who wants to *use* them? It's one thing to criticize that the >> standard is not implemented while there is great need by developers >> for the features, but quite another to criticize just "for standards >> sake", as if ISO decree were more important than actual developer >> needs/desires. Statistics please. What C features are developers >> targeting Windows clamouring for and which developers and how many >> developers? C standard compliance just for compliance sake is wasted >> effort? > We have plenty of applications which don't need to be "ported" between > operating systems (or at least the non-portabilities can be > localized), when there are standard-compliant compilers available. > Perhaps you don't consider portable use of C99 features useful in > OpenMP (and in certain other threading models, such as Cilk) to be a > suitable standard C topic. > Fortunately, others on this forum are open to considering Windows as > an eligible platform to support C. ISO does not control industry. Three or so posts now by three or so different people have presented nothing but fan-boyism. List the things that are missing, qualify and quantify the need for them, stick it in MS's face. By their analysis (I *assume* that they do that), they seem to have decided they are not important. Just wailing "ISO standard, ISO standard! Hail to the ISO standard!" lacks substance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 08:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503B1932.7040701@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25062 |
Am 27.08.2012 06:46, schrieb Ansel: > Just wailing "ISO standard, ISO standard! Hail to > the ISO standard!" lacks substance. Standards are there to ease portability between platforms. This is their main use, otherwise a good specification of the compiler you are working with would be completely sufficient. You wouldn't need a standards body at all for the specification. A compiler vendor that cherry-picks features that are declared mandatory by a standard undermines that portability goal, so it undermines the usefulness of the whole standard. This is not a question, if I/we need that and that feature. This is the question of reducing the complexity of decisions I have to take during a development. What was implied by some of the posts here, was that people suspect MS to do this willingly. All that I can see is they didn't work much to avoid such a suspicion. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 01:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1f6qd$s5g$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25067 |
Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 27.08.2012 06:46, schrieb Ansel: >> Just wailing "ISO standard, ISO standard! Hail to >> the ISO standard!" lacks substance. > > Standards are there to ease portability between platforms. This is > their main use, otherwise a good specification of the compiler you are > working with would be completely sufficient. You wouldn't need a > standards body at all for the specification. > > A compiler vendor that cherry-picks features that are declared > mandatory by a standard undermines that portability goal, so it > undermines the usefulness of the whole standard. > > This is not a question, if I/we need that and that feature. This is > the question of reducing the complexity of decisions I have to take > during a development. > > What was implied by some of the posts here, was that people suspect MS > to do this willingly. All that I can see is they didn't work much to > avoid such a suspicion. > Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no check-n-balance. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Apparently ISO did not get MS's committal sign-off on the standard before it went to the printing press (?) that they would implement it in its entirety? Live and learn? Did they fair better with C 11 (or whatever the newest C standard is)? ISO in need of some management consulting? I think MS might (read, I wouldn't put it past them, but then again, I'm not a trusting person, especially when money and/or power is involved so it's not just MS, but everyone) sabotage others via what they implement, but as I have no examples, I refrain from making such an accusation. The way you stated your "suspicion" was: "Well, no I don't have an example where a feature left out directly compromised <whatever>, but the fact that they did not implement it surely means those craft devils are doing something bad!". It's like you, and others here, are warriors for ISO. WWIII: ISO fan-boys vs. MS. I think it is nothing but hot air unless someone(s) examine(s) the issues and report(s) their findings. "Hail to thee ISO Standard" has no merit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 11:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503B3CE6.6030607@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25069 |
Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel: > Jens Gustedt wrote: > Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no check-n-balance. nobody is asking for that. other compilers have a lot of extensions, no problem with that if they are just marked as such. > "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Apparently ISO did not get MS's > committal sign-off on the standard before it went to the printing press (?) > that they would implement it in its entirety? Live and learn? Did they fair > better with C 11 (or whatever the newest C standard is)? ISO in need of some > management consulting? Clearly it is a vendors choice to decide whether or not they want to implement a standard. They just shouldn't call it C (or C++, POSIX, whatever) if they don't implement it completely. Unfortunately there is no trademark on the word C as a programming language. (There might be on ISO C by the way, so anybody claiming to be ISO C should actually comply to C11 nowadays.) - snip - > I think it is nothing but hot air unless someone(s) examine(s) the issues > and report(s) their findings. "Hail to thee ISO Standard" has no merit. I find it quite unfortunate that you only try to read in my post what you like to read. This makes discussions difficult. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 04:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1fgrk$m33$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25088 |
Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel: >> Jens Gustedt wrote: > >> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no >> check-n-balance. > > nobody is asking for that. I got/get the impression that the 3 or so of you that I am referring to are indeed on that track. I don't know if what MS left out is the major deficiency Jacob (he was the first to "whine" about C99 in this thread) is making it out to be. So what did I do? I suggested that someone put together the story (and thought maybe someone may even post a link) so it could be known exactly what the situation is. If there are no pain points, then the issue of C99 compliance is moot. Now surely MS has a big presence and influence at the standards meetings, yes? Well, if they didn't get commitment from everyone before declaring the standard finished, there really is nothing to whine about after the fact. The solution is to change the process, or something if it has shown to give inadequate results. Isn't it called "insanity" to keep doing the same thing and expecting to get a different result? I am curious to know, that is why I asked. If you take the stance, "Well they didn't implement the entire standard, so there is nothing more to discuss", well, then indeed, there is nothing more to discuss for that is fan-boy stance! > other compilers have a lot of extensions, > no problem with that if they are just marked as such. I thought the issue was omissions, but in either case. > >> "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Apparently ISO did not get MS's >> committal sign-off on the standard before it went to the printing >> press (?) that they would implement it in its entirety? Live and >> learn? Did they fair better with C 11 (or whatever the newest C >> standard is)? ISO in need of some management consulting? > > Clearly it is a vendors choice to decide whether or not they want to > implement a standard. Yet they are members of <whatever they have to be a member of to influence the ISO C standard>, yes? So, you have all these vendors in a room to agree on a standard, you have their captive attention, and then don't close the sale. Maybe, just maybe, sales is not your strong suit? I'm sure I'll be enlightened now about how all this standards stuff works, which I welcome for I am now curious about it. >They just shouldn't call it C (or C++, POSIX, > whatever) if they don't implement it completely. Maybe the actual implementations are C and the standard should not be calling itself C. The goal of the committees are to codify common practice? Maybe if MS C didn't implement part of "ISO Standard C" (tm) then those things should be removed from "The ISO Standard" (tm). (I'm being facetious, to make the point). > Unfortunately there > is no trademark on the word C as a programming language. Ah ha! So my "(tm)" thingies above are *very* on track. You meant by "unfortunately", of course, "It is unfortunate that the *ISO* does not have the trademark on C". >(There might > be on ISO C by the way, so anybody claiming to be ISO C should > actually comply to C11 nowadays.) > Now we're getting to the crux of the issue I think. > - snip - > >> I think it is nothing but hot air unless someone(s) examine(s) the >> issues and report(s) their findings. "Hail to thee ISO Standard" has >> no merit. > > I find it quite unfortunate that you only try to read in my post what > you like to read. This makes discussions difficult. > Do you still think I'm "reading something into" your post that isn't there? Hmm?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uJKdnY049-o3yKbNnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@lyse.net> |
| In reply to | #25090 |
On 27/08/2012 12:07, Ansel wrote: > Jens Gustedt wrote: >> Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel: >>> Jens Gustedt wrote: >> >>> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no >>> check-n-balance. >> >> nobody is asking for that. > > I got/get the impression that the 3 or so of you that I am referring to are > indeed on that track. I don't know if what MS left out is the major > deficiency Jacob (he was the first to "whine" about C99 in this thread) is > making it out to be. So what did I do? I suggested that someone put together > the story (and thought maybe someone may even post a link) so it could be > known exactly what the situation is. If there are no pain points, then the > issue of C99 compliance is moot. > > Now surely MS has a big presence and influence at the standards meetings, > yes? Well, if they didn't get commitment from everyone before declaring the > standard finished, there really is nothing to whine about after the fact. > The solution is to change the process, or something if it has shown to give > inadequate results. Isn't it called "insanity" to keep doing the same thing > and expecting to get a different result? > Let me get this straight - you think that Microsoft took active part in the standards committee, then the committee fixed and published the standard without Microsoft's agreement, and it is therefore it is the standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when Microsoft's compiler doesn't follow the standard? Perhaps you are playing catchup with the world Microsoft lives in, but this is the usual way Microsoft treats standards. They like to be part of lots of standardisation committees, and they like to push and pull them in various directions (sometimes for the better, of course). But they never consider themselves bound by the standards in any way. In the case of C99, MS took part in and agreed on the standards. Some parts of C99 were included almost entirely at MS's insistence, despite the fact that they never supported them in the compiler (unfortunately I can't remember the details or references - so I can't object if you give that claim no credit). The main point is that MS agreed to the standard, but decided not to implement it. If you want see an even clearer example of this behaviour, look at the OOXML farce. MS created the "standard" in its entirety, corrupted and bribed standards committees around the world until it eventually got passed as an ISO standard, and then ignored it and continued to use their modified non-standard undocumented version of OOXML. Cynics might suggest that Microsoft do this sort of thing intentionally in order to avoid effective standards that would let people choose tools and platforms independently, instead of always using MS products. But I'm sure that is unfair, and the reality is that they are just incompetent and different MS departments and employees are incapable of talking to each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 09:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k1fvib$mr9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25092 |
On 27-Aug-12 06:09, David Brown wrote: > Cynics might suggest that Microsoft do this sort of thing intentionally > in order to avoid effective standards that would let people choose tools > and platforms independently, instead of always using MS products. But > I'm sure that is unfair, and the reality is that they are just > incompetent and different MS departments and employees are incapable of > talking to each other. Their own internal memos, both leaked to the press and discovered during various anti-trust lawsuits, show that this was (and is) a deliberate strategic decision on their part. Have you really never heard of "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish"? S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 16:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <_Mudnbl1KZ-xG6bNnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d@lyse.net> |
| In reply to | #25098 |
On 27/08/2012 16:17, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 27-Aug-12 06:09, David Brown wrote: >> Cynics might suggest that Microsoft do this sort of thing intentionally >> in order to avoid effective standards that would let people choose tools >> and platforms independently, instead of always using MS products. But >> I'm sure that is unfair, and the reality is that they are just >> incompetent and different MS departments and employees are incapable of >> talking to each other. > > Their own internal memos, both leaked to the press and discovered during > various anti-trust lawsuits, show that this was (and is) a deliberate > strategic decision on their part. > > Have you really never heard of "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish"? > Sorry if my sarcasm here was too subtle - I guess I should have added some emphasis here and there in that paragraph (it sounded obvious in my head when I wrote it). For the record, I count myself amongst the cynics described.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 22:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1hfrb$fki$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25098 |
Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 27-Aug-12 06:09, David Brown wrote: >> Cynics might suggest that Microsoft do this sort of thing >> intentionally in order to avoid effective standards that would let >> people choose tools and platforms independently, instead of always >> using MS products. But I'm sure that is unfair, and the reality is >> that they are just incompetent and different MS departments and >> employees are incapable of talking to each other. > > Their own internal memos, both leaked to the press and discovered > during various anti-trust lawsuits, show that this was (and is) a > deliberate strategic decision on their part. > > Have you really never heard of "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish"? I'll get back to David's post "shortly". The above cliche quotation probably sums up his whole post accurately, and it reaks of the behavior of politicians who have nothing to offer over their opponents: they lack any substance, so they go looking for fault in their opponents. Hello? Does anyone care how bad the others are? They want to know what *YOU* can do. Is there actually an ISO C group (I don't know what to call it formally) that doesn't include MS as a constituent? Because if not, then y'all should stop singling MS out as not one of your own or take away their membership card or something if you don't want them in your religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 22:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1hgoj$h7f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25092 |
David Brown wrote: > On 27/08/2012 12:07, Ansel wrote: >> Jens Gustedt wrote: >>> Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel: >>>> Jens Gustedt wrote: >>> >>>> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no >>>> check-n-balance. >>> >>> nobody is asking for that. >> >> I got/get the impression that the 3 or so of you that I am referring >> to are indeed on that track. I don't know if what MS left out is the >> major deficiency Jacob (he was the first to "whine" about C99 in >> this thread) is making it out to be. So what did I do? I suggested >> that someone put together the story (and thought maybe someone may >> even post a link) so it could be known exactly what the situation >> is. If there are no pain points, then the issue of C99 compliance is >> moot. Now surely MS has a big presence and influence at the standards >> meetings, yes? Well, if they didn't get commitment from everyone >> before declaring the standard finished, there really is nothing to >> whine about after the fact. The solution is to change the process, >> or something if it has shown to give inadequate results. Isn't it >> called "insanity" to keep doing the same thing and expecting to get >> a different result? > > Let me get this straight - you think that Microsoft took active part > in the standards committee, Yes. > then the committee fixed and I don't know what you mean by that. Explain. > published the > standard without Microsoft's agreement, I think that the ISO process/managment may be deficient. (?) > and it is therefore it is the > standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when Microsoft's > compiler doesn't follow the standard? You said "blame". I am still trying to figure out if there is a problem and if so, what the problem is. No one, though, as of yet, is forthcoming with any relevant information. > > Perhaps you are playing catchup with the world Microsoft lives in, > but this is the usual way Microsoft treats standards. > They like to be > part of lots of standardisation committees, and they like to push and > pull them in various directions (sometimes for the better, of > course). But they never consider themselves bound by the standards > in any way. So your case against MS is done and now you want to talk about other things? Hello? You have not given any substantive information that I suggested you should if you have a beef with them. (Not *you* specifically--don't take anything I say personally please). > In the case of C99, MS took part in and agreed on the standards. "agreed" how? What does that mean? That they said, "oh yeah, that document looks just fine"? Did they say they were going to use the document as a requirements specification? Or is it just you that thinks that "sleeping together really means something" (ref: Vanilla Sky)? > Some > parts of C99 were included almost entirely at MS's insistence, Do they get more votes or something because they pay more? Are you saying you went to the casino and the casino "stole" your money? > despite > the fact that they never supported them in the compiler > (unfortunately I can't remember the details or references - so I > can't object if you give that claim no credit). The main point is > that MS agreed to the standard, but decided not to implement it. Definition required: what does "agreed to" mean? Did they "agree" to use the standard as a requirements document? > > If you want see an even clearer example of this behaviour, look at the > OOXML farce. Whoa! One "standard" at a time please!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 13:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gJGdnRaG-cKnNaHNnZ2dnUVZ7sCdnZ2d@lyse.net> |
| In reply to | #25179 |
On 28/08/2012 06:18, Ansel wrote: > David Brown wrote: >> On 27/08/2012 12:07, Ansel wrote: >>> Jens Gustedt wrote: >>>> Am 27.08.2012 09:16, schrieb Ansel: >>>>> Jens Gustedt wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well if vendors just bowed to ISO, then there would be no >>>>> check-n-balance. >>>> >>>> nobody is asking for that. >>> >>> I got/get the impression that the 3 or so of you that I am referring >>> to are indeed on that track. I don't know if what MS left out is the >>> major deficiency Jacob (he was the first to "whine" about C99 in >>> this thread) is making it out to be. So what did I do? I suggested >>> that someone put together the story (and thought maybe someone may >>> even post a link) so it could be known exactly what the situation >>> is. If there are no pain points, then the issue of C99 compliance is >>> moot. Now surely MS has a big presence and influence at the standards >>> meetings, yes? Well, if they didn't get commitment from everyone >>> before declaring the standard finished, there really is nothing to >>> whine about after the fact. The solution is to change the process, >>> or something if it has shown to give inadequate results. Isn't it >>> called "insanity" to keep doing the same thing and expecting to get >>> a different result? >> >> Let me get this straight - you think that Microsoft took active part >> in the standards committee, > > Yes. > >> then the committee fixed and > > I don't know what you mean by that. Explain. > "Wrote down on paper", "decided upon", "agreed on" >> published the >> standard without Microsoft's agreement, > > I think that the ISO process/managment may be deficient. (?) > You are not answering the question. Do you think that Microsoft agreed to the C99 and other standards, or do you think the standards were formed without Microsoft's agreement? There is no doubt that MS were heavily involved in the committees and standards formation. >> and it is therefore it is the >> standards committee, not Microsoft, that is to blame when Microsoft's >> compiler doesn't follow the standard? > > You said "blame". I am still trying to figure out if there is a problem and > if so, what the problem is. No one, though, as of yet, is forthcoming with > any relevant information. > First off, yes - there /is/ a problem. MS has deliberately chosen not to implement C99 or later standards of C. I say "deliberately" because they have publicly stated that they will not support the standards. It is not a matter of time or money (which I could understand), since the effort involved would be tiny in comparison to the effort they make in developing MSVC. And it /is/ a problem, because it hinders the use of cross-platform C programming in the desktop PC world. This is a problem for developers who might choose to use C for cross-platform programming, and it is a problem for users and consumers who could have benefited from these programs. It is /not/ a problem for MS, because it is in their interests to hinder cross-platform programming. (To be fair here, MS is not nearly as bad as Apple in this area.) So I believe it is a problem, and MS is solely to blame. But you seem to think that it is not a problem (I can see that viewpoint, though I don't agree with it), and that it is the C committee that is to blame for the situation. >> >> Perhaps you are playing catchup with the world Microsoft lives in, >> but this is the usual way Microsoft treats standards. >> They like to be >> part of lots of standardisation committees, and they like to push and >> pull them in various directions (sometimes for the better, of >> course). But they never consider themselves bound by the standards >> in any way. > > So your case against MS is done and now you want to talk about other things? > Hello? You have not given any substantive information that I suggested you > should if you have a beef with them. (Not *you* specifically--don't take > anything I say personally please). MS does not support C99 in their tools, despite their users asking for it (google a little if you want to see examples). This is substantive information - and yes, it is enough to rest the case. I could go on about motives (and I have done, at least a little), but that is more speculative and circumstantial. (I won't take anything you say personally, and hope you won't either.) > >> In the case of C99, MS took part in and agreed on the standards. > > "agreed" how? What does that mean? That they said, "oh yeah, that document > looks just fine"? Did they say they were going to use the document as a > requirements specification? Or is it just you that thinks that "sleeping > together really means something" (ref: Vanilla Sky)? > Your first interpretation is closest - "agreed" means they said "that document looks just fine" and signed on the bottom of the ISO standard. Agreeing on the standard does not require a commitment to implement it. It just means you agree with the rest of the committee that the standard will form the definition of "C99", and that anyone with tools or code conforming to that standard can work together. But you really do have to question the motives of a company that forms and agrees to a standard, then fails to implement it in their tools. >> Some >> parts of C99 were included almost entirely at MS's insistence, > > Do they get more votes or something because they pay more? Are you saying > you went to the casino and the casino "stole" your money? I don't know how many votes they get (or even to what extent the committee uses votes), but being a major toolchain vendor, they get a lot of influence on the committee. That seems only reasonable. > >> despite >> the fact that they never supported them in the compiler >> (unfortunately I can't remember the details or references - so I >> can't object if you give that claim no credit). The main point is >> that MS agreed to the standard, but decided not to implement it. > > Definition required: what does "agreed to" mean? > > Did they "agree" to use the standard as a requirements document? > To my knowledge, they "agreed" to the standard. You can interpret that to mean they agreed to use the standard as a requirements document - if they ever make a C99 compiler, it will have to follow the standard. But I don't think they ever promised to actually implement the standard. People (including the rest of the committee) may have /expected/ them to implement it, but MS is not obliged to do so. >> >> If you want see an even clearer example of this behaviour, look at the >> OOXML farce. > > Whoa! One "standard" at a time please! > I am just trying to demonstrate a pattern, using an example that was well publicised, showing MS's treatment of standards and standards committees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 10:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k1ij41$lui$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25219 |
On 08/28/2012 07:14 AM, David Brown wrote: ... > I don't know how many votes they get (or even to what extent the > committee uses votes), but being a major toolchain vendor, they get a > lot of influence on the committee. That seems only reasonable. As I understand it (any committee members who are reading this feel free to correct me) the members of the ISO committee are national standards organizations, one per country, with one vote each. For reasons I'm not sure of, ANSI (the US member) seems to have influence greatly disproportional to it's voting power. Within ANSI, membership is open to foreign citizens, which is why many people whose own country doesn't have a standards organization sitting on the ISO committee participate through ANSI instead. Non-voting membership is free, voting membership costs money and imposes attendance requirements at meetings, but no organization can purchase more than one voting membership (except for "Self", the organization that you can register as representing if you are not actually representing anyone but yourself). The cost and attendance requirements are trivial for most companies, but a bit onerous for an individual. Despite that, a large fraction of the committee's members are individuals who are paying their own way. Microsoft may have had a lot of informal influence, but formally, at least, they could not have had more than one vote. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web