Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #58109 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-14 23:05 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-03-18 08:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 233 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-14 23:05 +0100
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-15 13:08 +1300
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 14:49 +0100
Re: New directions in C Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 10:03 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 01:36 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 02:07 -0700
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 11:10 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 10:36 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 11:43 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 11:01 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 13:11 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 12:51 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 06:11 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 13:37 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-16 13:44 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 15:23 +0100
Re: New directions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-16 15:07 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 10:24 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-16 19:36 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 16:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-16 15:51 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 20:41 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:23 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:34 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:37 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:48 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:52 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 16:05 +0100
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-17 18:58 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 12:15 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 12:31 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 16:13 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 09:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 17:59 +0100
Re: New directions in C Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-17 17:16 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 18:24 +0100
Re: New directions in C Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-17 17:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 18:02 +0000
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-17 18:58 +0000
Re: New directions in C fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-03-17 13:04 -0700
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:17 -0700
Re: New directions in C Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-18 14:58 +0000
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 11:38 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-17 22:59 -0400
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-18 09:05 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-18 08:56 -0400
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-18 10:27 +0100
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 09:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 17:44 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:11 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:14 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 05:24 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 16:50 +1300
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 07:21 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-17 01:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 21:22 +1300
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:55 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 22:08 +1300
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 07:01 -0700
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-16 08:27 -0400
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 13:31 +0100
Re: New directions in C Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: New directions in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-16 17:16 +0000
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:15 +0000
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-23 12:41 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-23 10:20 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 12:54 +0100
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 09:30 -0700
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-16 13:14 -0400
Jacob (Was: New directions in C) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-03-16 18:07 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 15:27 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 16:26 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 10:09 -0700
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 11:14 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-17 13:42 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 14:59 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:27 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:34 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 16:18 +0000
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:35 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 01:23 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-22 11:00 +0000
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-29 16:56 +0000
Re: New directions in C asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-29 10:04 -0700
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-29 10:56 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-29 19:30 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-29 12:25 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-29 20:46 +0100
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-29 21:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-30 07:43 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 00:33 +0200
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-06 23:13 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-07 15:46 +1200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 01:37 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-07 21:08 +1200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 02:52 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-07 11:09 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 13:18 +0200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 13:03 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 06:16 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 16:18 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 07:37 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 23:31 +0200
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-07 22:40 -0400
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-08 16:57 +1200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 09:14 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 01:52 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-08 21:36 +1200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 02:51 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-08 22:23 +1200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 13:14 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 04:27 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 14:29 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 06:01 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 15:21 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 06:44 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 16:50 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 08:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 10:55 -0700
Re: New directions in C asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-08 22:27 -0700
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-08 11:13 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 21:27 +0200
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-08 13:12 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 09:34 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-09 00:59 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 12:31 +0200
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-09 08:41 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-08 22:48 +0100
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-08 19:03 -0500
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 10:01 +0200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 09:50 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-09 01:18 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 12:32 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-08 08:49 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 06:15 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-10 23:18 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-10 23:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-11 15:02 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-11 06:44 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-12 16:53 +0200
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-11 10:01 -0500
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-11 09:23 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-11 13:53 -0400
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-12 02:08 -0500
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-12 03:02 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-12 17:07 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-13 01:59 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-13 08:13 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-13 06:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-11 11:57 -0400
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-08 08:36 -0400
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 15:01 +0200
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-07 04:58 -0500
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-07 11:16 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 13:30 +0200
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-07 12:03 +0100
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-07 11:32 -0500
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-07 17:12 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-29 19:41 +0200
Re: New directions in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-29 18:21 +0000
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-29 21:29 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-29 14:26 -0700
Re: New directions in C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-03-29 19:10 -0500
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-30 09:48 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-30 13:14 +0200
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-06 12:39 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:53 -0700
Re: New directions in C Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2015-04-09 18:17 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 01:08 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:44 -0700
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-10 02:06 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 10:21 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 10:31 +0100
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 11:26 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 11:53 +0100
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 12:22 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 12:46 +0100
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 13:46 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 13:51 +0100
Re: New directions in C Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 18:54 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 13:11 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 14:10 -0700
Re: New directions in C Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-11 23:38 +0100
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 16:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 00:54 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 01:29 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:32 -0700
Re: New directions in C Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 23:33 +0000
Re: New directions in C Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-04-10 09:23 -0300
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 13:31 +0100
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 13:29 -0500
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 12:12 -0700
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-10 13:46 -0700
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 18:30 -0500
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-11 12:21 -0700
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-12 01:01 -0500
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-12 13:03 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-12 23:29 +0100
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-12 18:54 -0700
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-13 00:52 -0500
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-13 08:39 -0400
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:02 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:07 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-17 16:09 +0100
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:19 +0000
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 18:05 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 15:55 +1300
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 08:48 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-17 03:01 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 10:32 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:32 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 21:33 +1300
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-18 08:55 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 22:13 +1300
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 21:31 +1300
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 09:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 09:49 -0700
Re: New directions in C Lőrinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2015-03-16 10:07 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 10:51 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 10:25 +0000
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 11:32 +0000
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 13:06 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 05:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-16 13:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 10:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 16:37 +1300
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 05:42 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 09:41 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-18 08:29 -0700
Page 12 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 10:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me6932$9ld$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58165 |
Le 16/03/2015 10:07, Lőrinczy Zsigmond a écrit : > On 2015-03-14 23:05, jacob navia wrote: >> This is the first of a series of messages here I propose to discuss the >> developments/enhancements to C in lcc-win. > > Don't call this C language. Pick a character, a create a new name, eg: > C^ or C% This is all you manage to say? Well, you are in good company.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 10:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <me6b1d$nc5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58166 |
On 16/03/15 09:51, jacob navia wrote: > Le 16/03/2015 10:07, Lőrinczy Zsigmond a écrit : >> On 2015-03-14 23:05, jacob navia wrote: >>> This is the first of a series of messages here I propose to discuss the >>> developments/enhancements to C in lcc-win. >> >> Don't call this C language. Pick a character, a create a new name, eg: >> C^ or C% > > > This is all you manage to say? > > Well, you are in good company. Perhaps his point requires amplification. C is not an easy language, but it is at least a simple one. Its Power-to-Complexity Ratio (which I will abbreviate to PCR) is enormous (high power, low complexity), and this is a Good Thing. Every new feature added to C increases its complexity, and thus decreases its PCR unless the pay-off in power is commensurately enormous. C99 and C11 added new features to C that, whilst no doubt useful to various subsections of the C community, decreased the PCR significantly. C is now harder to learn than it used to be, and the pay-off in increased power is relatively low. Nevertheless, C's PCR remains higher than perhaps any other programming language. But every new feature we add to C makes it heavier, harder to learn, and harder to implement. It becomes harder to ensure that features don't bump into each other. It becomes harder to read the code, because the syntax becomes more and more dirty and indeed ugly. The PCR thus takes a swallow dive, and (given that all the features we are adding to C already exist in other languages) the new features actually make people less and less likely to use C. Nevertheless, the temptation to add features to C remains. For example, you wish to add operator overloading to C. Personally, I would love to see this (and I know that some people will disagree with me). Nevertheless, I hope that my wish is not granted, for the reason given above. Since there are so many people around who can resist everything except temptation, it is inevitable that a C variant will arise that has these extra features added on. But you don't have to call it C! Names are cheap. In fact, names are almost free. It costs very little effort to think up a new name. Lőrinczy Zsigmond is making the point that you can easily call this new dialect something else, and that doing so has distinct advantages both for C and for your new language. Diversity is a wonderful thing. A language that does everything you envisage is no doubt a worthy goal, but you don't have to call it C. Let C be what it is, and let your new language be what /it/ is, and then people can choose which one they want to use. In fact, you are far more likely to gain widespread acceptance of your ideas if you present them as a new, C-like language than if you try to persuade ISO to adopt your suggestions into C itself. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 11:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <me6ev0$6v7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58168 |
On 16/03/2015 10:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/03/15 09:51, jacob navia wrote: > Perhaps his point requires amplification. > > C is not an easy language, but it is at least a simple one. Its > Power-to-Complexity Ratio (which I will abbreviate to PCR) is enormous > (high power, low complexity), and this is a Good Thing. (You're understating the complexity. I've thought of dashing off a quick C compiler a few times, then after a bit more thought decided it was too much trouble, because the language /is/ complex in many subtle ways. Yet I can design an equivalent language which is easy to compile. Easier to write code in too..) > Every new > feature added to C increases its complexity, and thus decreases its PCR > unless the pay-off in power is commensurately enormous. But there are some features that are so useful, and so easy to implement, that there is no reason not to have them. Having default function arguments is one of them. If C is a bike, and C++ say is a car, then you're right that the bike has many advantages by being smaller and simpler (in being able to go anywhere, etc). But there's no reason why it can't have a padded seat, extra gears, and a bell! It will still have the same advantages. > Names are cheap. In fact, names are almost free. It costs very little > effort to think up a new name. Lőrinczy Zsigmond is making the point > that you can easily call this new dialect something else, and that doing > so has distinct advantages both for C and for your new language. > > Diversity is a wonderful thing. A language that does everything you > envisage is no doubt a worthy goal, but you don't have to call it C. Many C implementations seem to have their own extensions to the language. They are still called C compilers. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 13:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me6gvi$eu2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58178 |
On 16/03/15 12:32, Bartc wrote: > On 16/03/2015 10:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 16/03/15 09:51, jacob navia wrote: > >> Perhaps his point requires amplification. >> >> C is not an easy language, but it is at least a simple one. Its >> Power-to-Complexity Ratio (which I will abbreviate to PCR) is enormous >> (high power, low complexity), and this is a Good Thing. > > (You're understating the complexity. I've thought of dashing off a quick > C compiler a few times, then after a bit more thought decided it was too > much trouble, because the language /is/ complex in many subtle ways. Yet > I can design an equivalent language which is easy to compile. Easier to > write code in too..) > >> Every new >> feature added to C increases its complexity, and thus decreases its PCR >> unless the pay-off in power is commensurately enormous. > > But there are some features that are so useful, and so easy to > implement, that there is no reason not to have them. Having default > function arguments is one of them. > > If C is a bike, and C++ say is a car, then you're right that the bike > has many advantages by being smaller and simpler (in being able to go > anywhere, etc). But there's no reason why it can't have a padded seat, > extra gears, and a bell! It will still have the same advantages. The extra gears are great, until your chain breaks and you have to get it fixed by an expert rather than doing it yourself as you did on your old bike. (The analogy is poor, I know - but the point is that extra features are not necessarily "free" due to the added complexity. Though clearly you are right that the cost-benefit ratios will be different for different potential new features.) > > >> Names are cheap. In fact, names are almost free. It costs very little >> effort to think up a new name. Lőrinczy Zsigmond is making the point >> that you can easily call this new dialect something else, and that doing >> so has distinct advantages both for C and for your new language. >> >> Diversity is a wonderful thing. A language that does everything you >> envisage is no doubt a worthy goal, but you don't have to call it C. > > Many C implementations seem to have their own extensions to the > language. They are still called C compilers. > It's a matter of degrees. gcc (and many other compilers) add a few small extra features, that make some types of code easier to write or more efficient to implement. But the changes Jacob is suggestion would significantly change the language - it would be creating a "C+" that is halfway between C and C++. The changes are too big to be "C with extensions". If Jacob has the motivation to make such a language, that's great. And if it works well, and people find it useful, then the C committee and C compiler (and library) writers should look at it for features to copy - just as they take inspiration from C++ (such as "const", mixing declarations and statements, etc.). But I think Jacob is doing himself a disfavour by trying to persuade the C community and committee to adopt his ideas - his language would be stronger on its own at the moment. (Unlike some others, I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss such languages here, even if they are not standard C.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d3542db-30a2-48d6-92bf-9d53ce2b3144@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58180 |
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 12:07:09 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > > The extra gears are great, until your chain breaks and you have to get > it fixed by an expert rather than doing it yourself as you did on your > old bike. (The analogy is poor, I know - but the point is that extra > features are not necessarily "free" due to the added complexity. Though > clearly you are right that the cost-benefit ratios will be different for > different potential new features.) > Exactly. There are several sweet spots, so room in the marketplace for products with various simplicity / power trade-offs. But there are also areas in between where adding complexity will make learning how to use the language or implementing or debugging it a lot harder, without gaining enough in power. Or where removing features will noticeably damage the power without really game-changing the complexity. The tiny C compiler is a one man project (tcc). It's open source, so one person ought to be able to incorporate a C compiler into another project, using Fabrice Bellard's code as base. That's not possible with C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5506de6e.10941093@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58178 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 16/03/2015 10:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > Every new feature added to C increases its complexity, and thus > > decreases its PCR unless the pay-off in power is commensurately enormous. > > But there are some features that are so useful, and so easy to > implement, that there is no reason not to have them. Having default > function arguments is one of them. > > If C is a bike, and C++ say is a car, then you're right that the bike > has many advantages by being smaller and simpler (in being able to go > anywhere, etc). But there's no reason why it can't have a padded seat, > extra gears, and a bell! It will still have the same advantages. Maybe. But what jacob wants to add is not a padded seat, but seat belts and auto-lock doors. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20150316095336.237@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #58178 |
On 2015-03-16, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 16/03/2015 10:25, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 16/03/15 09:51, jacob navia wrote: > >> Perhaps his point requires amplification. >> >> C is not an easy language, but it is at least a simple one. Its >> Power-to-Complexity Ratio (which I will abbreviate to PCR) is enormous >> (high power, low complexity), and this is a Good Thing. > > (You're understating the complexity. I've thought of dashing off a quick > C compiler a few times, then after a bit more thought decided it was too > much trouble, because the language /is/ complex in many subtle ways. Yet > I can design an equivalent language which is easy to compile. Easier to > write code in too..) > >> Every new >> feature added to C increases its complexity, and thus decreases its PCR >> unless the pay-off in power is commensurately enormous. > > But there are some features that are so useful, and so easy to > implement, that there is no reason not to have them. Having default > function arguments is one of them. > > If C is a bike, and C++ say is a car, then you're right that the bike > has many advantages by being smaller and simpler (in being able to go > anywhere, etc). But there's no reason why it can't have a padded seat, > extra gears, and a bell! It will still have the same advantages. Programming languages, and their toolchains, are like shops that that produce vehicles. Vehicles are like executables. The speed, size and efficiency of the vehicles is more important than of the factories. Both the C and C++ factory produce vehicles. The smallest and lightest possible vehicle which the C factory can produce using its standard techniques edges out the smallest and lightest possible C++ vehicle by a small margin. If the shop workers are allowed to do nonstandard things, the contest is not so clear-cut. Both the C and C++ factory can make large vehicles. The C++ factory has almost all of the same tools as the C factory and can make pretty much all the same vehicles, with some exceptions involving a few new specialized tools in the C factory. The C++ factory also has advanced tools that the C factory has no clue about, which can produce vehicles, large and small, in different ways that are not possible in the C factory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b6b7481-d102-41d3-9440-76a4f60134ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58221 |
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 5:07:24 PM UTC, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > Programming languages, and their toolchains, are like shops that that produce > vehicles. Vehicles are like executables. The speed, size and efficiency > of the vehicles is more important than of the factories. > But the price and safety of the vehicle are usually the most important single factors. Those are influenced mainly by the cost and complexity of gluing the standard components together, and of building any custom components required. C in my view wins by a large margin, because C interfaces tend to be cleaner than in almost any other language. Components written in C will fit into almost any car, as well as being efficient internally. Where C falls down is that it's hard to verify that any component or glue is safe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-17 16:37 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cmpls3F5dq2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58225 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 5:07:24 PM UTC, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> >> Programming languages, and their toolchains, are like shops that that produce >> vehicles. Vehicles are like executables. The speed, size and efficiency >> of the vehicles is more important than of the factories. >> > But the price and safety of the vehicle are usually the most important single factors. > Those are influenced mainly by the cost and complexity of gluing the standard > components together, and of building any custom components required. > C in my view wins by a large margin, because C interfaces tend to be cleaner > than in almost any other language. Components written in C will fit into almost > any car, as well as being efficient internally. Where C falls down is that it's hard to > verify that any component or glue is safe. Which is where C++ steps in. It's much easier to write safe code in C++. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 05:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c34ee62-668a-4d79-80bc-745e0c8fd775@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58168 |
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 10:25:46 AM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > Diversity is a wonderful thing. A language that does everything you > envisage is no doubt a worthy goal, but you don't have to call it C. Let > C be what it is, and let your new language be what /it/ is, and then > people can choose which one they want to use. In fact, you are far more > likely to gain widespread acceptance of your ideas if you present them > as a new, C-like language than if you try to persuade ISO to adopt your > suggestions into C itself. > There's C++, C sharp and Objective C. All of which are better or enhanced C, with facilities for easy linking with components written in C. So another language called C_something would be in good company. However C sharp and Objective C really only caught on because they had massive corporations behind them determined to make their C dialect a standard. Unless Jacob can persuade IBM or someone like that to back him, it's going to be hard to attract a user base. You always have the chicken and egg problem, a widely-used language is always more attractive than a little-used one, even if the little-used one is objectively superior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5506b6b3.769656@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58165 |
=?UTF-8?B?TMWRcmluY3p5IFpzaWdtb25k?= <zsiga@nospam.for.me> wrote: > On 2015-03-14 23:05, jacob navia wrote: > > This is the first of a series of messages here I propose to discuss the > > developments/enhancements to C in lcc-win. > > Don't call this C language. Pick a character, a create a new name, eg: > C^ or C% Seconded. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c8a0ba2-6089-481e-a824-fded177433f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58165 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 16 marca 2015 10:07:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Lőrinczy Zsigmond napisał: > On 2015-03-14 23:05, jacob navia wrote: > > This is the first of a series of messages here I propose to discuss the > > developments/enhancements to C in lcc-win. > > Don't call this C language. Pick a character, a create a new name, eg: > C^ or C% this could be called "additions to c" seems just like port of some c++ aditions to c (i wouldnt called it new language but also not " new c directions " as this is bad way arrogant or bad way marketing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-18 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4940750a-2b93-493f-b7c9-1a98f787b6b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58109 |
PS as to title: I am not sure if any new directions in c are at al possible .. becouse c is c, if you will change it it wouldnt be at all c but warped c otherwise if you will conform to c rules and somewhat build it up, it may be some new c - well this way it seem possible (though probably new c would differ to old c so this way also shows a bit that c is like one, the old c (REVERE (ESTEEM) YOUR (PRIMARY) C) thus imo this title could be only "new directions in new c" besides that if additions do not hold c spirit those are not even a "new c" but some other 'warped c successor' (i wonder if my c2 solutions could be called new c (probably no and this is also warped descendand)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web