Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #138239 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bart4858@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-25 14:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-11-26 14:38 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 179 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
_mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 14:38 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 03:19 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-26 12:48 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-26 13:29 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2018-11-26 22:02 +0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-26 16:09 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 09:11 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 06:34 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 06:39 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-26 16:06 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 09:01 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-26 17:04 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 09:19 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-26 22:19 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 14:11 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 00:29 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-11-27 09:44 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 01:49 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 04:21 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 04:51 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-11-27 13:19 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-11-26 17:26 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 08:16 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 04:18 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 04:48 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 05:09 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 14:39 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 05:54 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 15:28 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 06:58 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 15:03 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 07:13 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 16:55 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 09:02 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 17:11 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 09:17 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 17:48 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-27 20:35 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-28 15:42 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 02:44 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-28 23:52 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 03:42 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-11-28 15:48 +0300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 05:24 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:30 +0300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-28 13:59 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 05:33 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-28 14:31 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-28 23:19 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 01:35 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-29 13:25 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-28 14:28 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:33 +0300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 06:56 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 11:53 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 12:09 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 01:26 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 02:57 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-11-27 09:49 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-11-27 11:31 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 20:34 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 22:45 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 14:12 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-11-27 11:32 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 14:36 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-27 14:45 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 15:02 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 16:29 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 15:51 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-27 16:00 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-27 23:40 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 01:22 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-28 15:57 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-28 08:29 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 11:38 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-11-28 16:02 +0300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 13:35 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-28 08:14 -0600
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-28 13:33 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 14:25 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-28 15:25 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 15:06 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 07:43 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-28 15:49 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 17:56 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-28 23:27 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-28 20:12 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-11-29 09:58 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-29 13:04 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-29 12:41 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-11-29 08:19 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-29 14:28 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-11-29 22:25 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-30 11:59 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-11-30 08:02 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-30 14:09 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-11-30 10:30 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-30 16:02 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-11-30 16:40 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-30 17:23 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-12-01 07:47 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-12-01 13:46 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-12-01 12:08 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-12-02 12:57 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-12-02 16:21 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-12-02 20:42 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-12-02 22:04 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-12-02 23:49 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:35 +0300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-30 14:19 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-30 14:58 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-11-30 10:33 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-30 15:45 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-30 15:20 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-29 14:54 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 06:03 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-29 16:09 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-29 16:44 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-29 22:08 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-29 22:29 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-30 10:27 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-11-30 01:49 -0800
"real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-12-01 08:18 +0000
Re: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-12-01 18:02 +0100
That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-12-01 17:31 +0000
Re: That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-12-02 13:03 +0100
Re: That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-12-02 23:05 -0500
Re: That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-12-03 11:38 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 02:00 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-30 08:16 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-29 20:49 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-30 19:39 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-11-30 10:37 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-30 20:21 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-30 20:23 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:13 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-30 22:14 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-01 11:29 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-11-30 18:32 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-30 23:47 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-12-01 18:05 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-12-01 13:29 -0500
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-12-01 07:28 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-12-01 16:49 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-29 08:53 +1300
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-28 20:01 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-28 21:15 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-28 21:26 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-29 00:22 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-29 14:14 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-29 14:54 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-28 14:19 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-27 16:44 -0600
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-11-29 22:58 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-30 00:58 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-27 14:11 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 06:28 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-27 15:14 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 07:41 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-11-27 16:11 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-11-29 10:00 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-11-26 17:24 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 10:57 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-26 19:06 +0000
Re: _mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 12:16 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-26 12:52 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 04:17 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-26 14:40 +0100
What is wrong with this sentence? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-11-26 13:34 +0000
Re: What is wrong with this sentence? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-11-26 16:39 +0300
Re: What is wrong with this sentence? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 06:13 -0800
Re: What is wrong with this sentence? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-26 16:13 +0100
Re: What is wrong with this sentence? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-26 14:42 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-11-26 13:02 -0800
Re: _mingw_off_t.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-11-26 22:24 +0100
Re: _mingw_off_t.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-11-26 14:38 +0000
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pHULD.270090$Do.54119@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #138400 |
On 29/11/2018 15:09, David Brown wrote: > Some people see problems everywhere they look. Yes, that is why there is progress, because people want to make something better. And why many people have jobs in order to work on a new product that solves problems with the old one. (The downside is getting unwelcome software updates every five minutes.) Other people see > opportunities, choices, and flexibility. Listening to you and Bart is > depressing - you are like two geriatrics in an old-folks home, > complaining about the youth of today. One of my moans is about needless complexity. This is apparently not something you would ever complain about, and certain not for aesthetic reasons, provided you can throw enough resources, tools and computing power (ie. even more complexity and thus ultimately making things worse) to be able to brush it under the carpet. However, other people have different views.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ptpkgs$nid$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138402 |
On 29/11/2018 17:44, Bart wrote: > On 29/11/2018 15:09, David Brown wrote: > >> Some people see problems everywhere they look. > > Yes, that is why there is progress, because people want to make > something better. And why many people have jobs in order to work on a > new product that solves problems with the old one. > Progress is made by people finding /real/ opportunities for improvement. Throwing your toys out of the pram because you see a typedef you don't see as necessary is not progress. "Fixing" things that are not broken and don't need changing is not progress. Writing a new language can be progress. Moaning about an existing language that other people use quite happily and successfully is not progress. Can't you see the difference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XKZLD.36479$V_4.7025@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #138411 |
On 29/11/2018 21:08, David Brown wrote: > On 29/11/2018 17:44, Bart wrote: >> On 29/11/2018 15:09, David Brown wrote: >> >>> Some people see problems everywhere they look. >> >> Yes, that is why there is progress, because people want to make >> something better. And why many people have jobs in order to work on a >> new product that solves problems with the old one. >> > > Progress is made by people finding /real/ opportunities for improvement. > Throwing your toys out of the pram because you see a typedef you don't > see as necessary is not progress. "Fixing" things that are not broken > and don't need changing is not progress. > > Writing a new language can be progress. Moaning about an existing > language that other people use quite happily and successfully is not > progress. Can't you see the difference? > Seed7 is a newish language. It relies heavily on C. But it's source codes come with SEVENTEEN different makefiles, and that's only for the compilers it's known to work with. Four of those compilers make use of 'off64_t', which is found in the _mingw_off_t.h header that is the subject of the thread. In fact, the author actually posted about it being so challenging to build across compilers, that succeeding in doing would be a good test exercise. My dependency on C for new languages is considerably less, and mainly comes up when trying to use C library APIs (or getting my C compiler to work with a difficult C project). So to me, such untidy workings of C and its implementations are impediments to progress. For example, having to find an alternative to 'off64_t', which requires me to know what it actually is. For that test, guessing int64 seemed to suffice. But you shouldn't need to guess. Or even better, it needn't exist in the first place. I can see that you're never going to get it, being too immersed in C, and rarely working on the edges of it or trying to use aspects of it from other languages, especially your own languages. ----------------- Any new language, unless you are also writing a new OS, all-new libraries for everything, and even hardware (as Rick seems to be doing), will necessary have to work with existing APIs. Those APIs tend to be described using C. And that code tends to be make too much use of abstract types which are never fully explained, because you are expected to use them from a Compiler (with 1000+ headers), or browse the headers with a C-aware tool, or somehow track them down. Everything is C, C, C, when all you want to know is that a particular type is int32 on this and int64 on that. (Until you find out that a whole raft of functions aren't functions, but macros, so they will only work from C.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ptqvpk$utq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138412 |
On 29/11/18 23:29, Bart wrote: > On 29/11/2018 21:08, David Brown wrote: >> On 29/11/2018 17:44, Bart wrote: >>> On 29/11/2018 15:09, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> Some people see problems everywhere they look. >>> >>> Yes, that is why there is progress, because people want to make >>> something better. And why many people have jobs in order to work on a >>> new product that solves problems with the old one. >>> >> >> Progress is made by people finding /real/ opportunities for >> improvement. Throwing your toys out of the pram because you see a >> typedef you don't see as necessary is not progress. "Fixing" things >> that are not broken and don't need changing is not progress. >> >> Writing a new language can be progress. Moaning about an existing >> language that other people use quite happily and successfully is not >> progress. Can't you see the difference? >> > > Seed7 is a newish language. It relies heavily on C. But it's source > codes come with SEVENTEEN different makefiles, and that's only for the > compilers it's known to work with. > So what? You still don't understand what's important here. It does not matter if there are lots of makefiles. (And remember, Seed7 is not really a programming language - as far as I can tell, it is primarily a tool for comparing and testing C compilers.) Let's think of a real language - Python, Go, Java, etc. What fraction of actual /users/ of these languages compile the tools themselves? 0.1% ? 0.01% ? Of those, what fraction are interested in using a compiler other than the biggest choices - gcc, MSVC, clang, perhaps icc? Maybe 1%, mostly because some real Unix users like to use their system compilers from IBM, HP, Sun, etc. And of the people compiling these language tools, what fraction are going to bother looking at the makefiles and config files, rather than just following the "./configure && make && make install" recipes given in the documentation of tools? 1% ? So, for people who want to use a programming language, we are now down to perhaps one in a million who will even /notice/ how the build process is put together and what files it uses. Who /does/ care about the makefiles and the build process? I'd say three classes of people. First, there are the people who do regularly compile the tools. That would be the people developing the language, compilers, translators, VM's, etc. It would also be third-party people working on extensions or low-level modules for the language. They care that the build process works with common development tools (no tcc, lcc-win, etc., in sight), they care that the build process is reliable, and they care that it is efficient. They don't care how the makefiles are made, or what build process is used - if the documentation says builds are done with CMake and Ninja, then they install CMake and Ninja without concern. Secondly, there are the people who maintain the build process. They care that it is easy to maintain and adapt as needed. They don't care if there are more files than strictly needed, or larger files - unless that means more work for themselves. Then there are the people who look at the build processes themselves - for fun, for interest, for learning, for testing other parts of the process (like compilers), or to find new things to complain about. <snip> > Everything is C, C, C, when all you want to know is that a particular > type is int32 on this and int64 on that. (Until you find out that a > whole raft of functions aren't functions, but macros, so they will only > work from C.) You really have two choices here. You can learn C properly, learn to understand why it has the features it has, and how to use them, and how other people use them. Or you can drop your whole "compile to C" idea and just use different programming languages that suit you better. Have your translator target Pascal, or Rust, or Occaml - anything but C. Translating to "C as you think it should be" and complaining endlessly is not really getting you anywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 01:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln8t1aopxq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #138421 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> (And remember, Seed7 is not really a
> programming language - as far as I can tell, it is primarily a tool for
> comparing and testing C compilers.)
No, it's a programming language.
http://seed7.sourceforge.net/
Seed7 is a general purpose programming language designed by Thomas
Mertes. It is a higher level language compared to Ada, C/C++ and
Java. The Seed7 interpreter and the example programs are open-source
software. There is also an open-source Seed7 compiler. The compiler
translates Seed7 programs to C programs which are subsequently
compiled to machine code.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 08:18 +0000 |
| Subject | "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) |
| Message-ID | <pttg3s$srs$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #138422 |
In article <ln8t1aopxq.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >[...] >> (And remember, Seed7 is not really a >> programming language - as far as I can tell, it is primarily a tool for >> comparing and testing C compilers.) > >No, it's a programming language. > >http://seed7.sourceforge.net/ ... I think it is pretty cleat that DB was just being (gratuitously) insulting. (I.e., of course Seed7 is a programming langauge, and DB knows that, obviously) Personally, I don't think Python (one of DB's faves) is a "real" programming language, despite its solid adoption by a certain well known SBC product. My understading is that Python, like Pascal, was another "teaching langauge" (i.e., one not intended to actually be implemented or used in any serious way) that, like Pascal, somehow escaped the classroom and people started using it even though they should not have done so. -- Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding more flag burning laws, more abortion laws, more drug laws, more obscenity laws, and more police authority to make warrantless arrests to remind us that we need to "get the government off our backs".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 18:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h) |
| Message-ID | <ptuern$qne$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138459 |
On 01/12/2018 09:18, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <ln8t1aopxq.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> [...] >>> (And remember, Seed7 is not really a >>> programming language - as far as I can tell, it is primarily a tool for >>> comparing and testing C compilers.) >> >> No, it's a programming language. >> >> http://seed7.sourceforge.net/ > ... > > I think it is pretty cleat that DB was just being (gratuitously) insulting. > (I.e., of course Seed7 is a programming langauge, and DB knows that, > obviously) Actually, I was not, and Keith was being helpful in informing me. I have only heard of Seed7 in this newsgroup, and it seems to turn up regularly in terms of testing C compilers and building it in various ways. But of course this is a very biased view of Seed7 due to the people posting about it here and the aspects of Seed7 that are relevant in this newsgroup. If anyone felt insulted about my comments, then I apologise. > > Personally, I don't think Python (one of DB's faves) is a "real" > programming language, despite its solid adoption by a certain well known > SBC product. I am not sure of any way to classify programming languages as "real" or not which would exclude Python from the "real" group. (Yes, Python is a language I use a fair amount. My programming covers a wide span of tasks, including things for which C is the only practical choice to things for which C would be an insane choice. For high-level tasks, it is not often that Python is the only sensible option, but it is convenient for me.) > > My understading is that Python, like Pascal, was another "teaching > langauge" (i.e., one not intended to actually be implemented or used in any > serious way) that, like Pascal, somehow escaped the classroom and people > started using it even though they should not have done so. > Your understanding is wrong. And even if it were right, Python has undergone a great deal of change from the days in which it was a simple, limited language suitable for just small scripts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 17:31 +0000 |
| Subject | That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) |
| Message-ID | <ptugi8$g1h$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #138467 |
In article <ptuern$qne$1@dont-email.me>, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: ... >> I think it is pretty cleat that DB was just being (gratuitously) insulting. >> (I.e., of course Seed7 is a programming langauge, and DB knows that, >> obviously) > >Actually, I was not, and Keith was being helpful in informing me. I There was that time, back in 1987, I think it was, when someone asserted that someone else was being insulting and that other person responded that, yes, he was being insulting, and then apologized for being insulting. Hasn't happened since, of course... -- 1/20/17: A great day for all those people who are sick of being told they don't know how to spell "you're" (or "there").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) |
| Message-ID | <pu0hlu$b3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138469 |
On 01/12/2018 18:31, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <ptuern$qne$1@dont-email.me>, > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > ... >>> I think it is pretty cleat that DB was just being (gratuitously) insulting. >>> (I.e., of course Seed7 is a programming langauge, and DB knows that, >>> obviously) >> >> Actually, I was not, and Keith was being helpful in informing me. I > > There was that time, back in 1987, I think it was, when someone asserted > that someone else was being insulting and that other person responded that, > yes, he was being insulting, and then apologized for being insulting. > > Hasn't happened since, of course... > If I had been intentionally and /gratuitously/ insulting, I would have apologised unconditionally. When I write something that might have been interpreted as an insult I did not intend, then I apologise conditionally. I don't believe I am alone in that attitude, and have seen it more than once on Usenet (though not as often as one might hope).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 23:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) |
| Message-ID | <pu2a29$8hb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138479 |
On 12/2/18 07:03, David Brown wrote: > On 01/12/2018 18:31, Kenny McCormack wrote: ... >> There was that time, back in 1987, I think it was, when someone asserted >> that someone else was being insulting and that other person responded that, >> yes, he was being insulting, and then apologized for being insulting. >> >> Hasn't happened since, of course... >> > > If I had been intentionally and /gratuitously/ insulting, I would have > apologised unconditionally. When I write something that might have been > interpreted as an insult I did not intend, then I apologise > conditionally. I don't believe I am alone in that attitude, and have > seen it more than once on Usenet (though not as often as one might hope). > I find that odd. If I intentionally insult someone, it's because I feel that the insult is deserved and is being made in an appropriate context - for instance, if I insult them by calling them a liar because I have observed them lying, and the lies they've told occurred in the same forum where I issued that insult. I would only issue an apology if I decided that I'd been wrong about those facts - I wouldn't apologize just because it was an insult. If you can insult someone by telling a truth about them without doing so in a vulgar or misleading fashion, then the fact that it's an insult is not, in itself, sufficient reason to avoid speaking that truth. On the other hand, I would unconditionally apologize for any unintentional insult as soon as I realized that it was an insult. Note: something that is clearly not an insult, but gets taken as such by someone else misunderstanding me, is not an "accidental insult" in this sense. I would say "I'm sorry you misunderstood me" - but the presence of "I'm sorry" in that sentence doesn't make it an apology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 11:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That time back in 1987... (Was: "real" programming langauges? (Was: _mingw_off_t.h)) |
| Message-ID | <pu312d$io4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #138488 |
On 03/12/18 05:05, James Kuyper wrote: > On 12/2/18 07:03, David Brown wrote: >> On 01/12/2018 18:31, Kenny McCormack wrote: > ... >>> There was that time, back in 1987, I think it was, when someone asserted >>> that someone else was being insulting and that other person responded that, >>> yes, he was being insulting, and then apologized for being insulting. >>> >>> Hasn't happened since, of course... >>> >> >> If I had been intentionally and /gratuitously/ insulting, I would have >> apologised unconditionally. When I write something that might have been >> interpreted as an insult I did not intend, then I apologise >> conditionally. I don't believe I am alone in that attitude, and have >> seen it more than once on Usenet (though not as often as one might hope). >> > > I find that odd. If I intentionally insult someone, it's because I feel > that the insult is deserved and is being made in an appropriate context > - for instance, if I insult them by calling them a liar because I have > observed them lying, and the lies they've told occurred in the same > forum where I issued that insult. I said "intentionally and /gratuitously/ insulting". An intentional insult is not something to be made lightly - it only needs an apology if it was a mistake. That is why I said "gratuitously" - such as an insult made in anger, regretted later. > I would only issue an apology if I > decided that I'd been wrong about those facts - I wouldn't apologize > just because it was an insult. If you can insult someone by telling a > truth about them without doing so in a vulgar or misleading fashion, > then the fact that it's an insult is not, in itself, sufficient reason > to avoid speaking that truth. Agreed. > > On the other hand, I would unconditionally apologize for any > unintentional insult as soon as I realized that it was an insult. Note: > something that is clearly not an insult, but gets taken as such by > someone else misunderstanding me, is not an "accidental insult" in this > sense. I would say "I'm sorry you misunderstood me" - but the presence > of "I'm sorry" in that sentence doesn't make it an apology. > I think you are using different phrasing to mean much the same as me - the details of how much of an insult is accidentally implied, and how much is accidentally inferred, make such cases a grey area. Sorry if I was unclear here, or if you misunderstood me :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 02:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6c0cf38-bb03-4411-b731-e751f6300717@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #138421 |
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:27:25 AM UTC, David Brown wrote: > > Then there are the people who look at the build processes themselves - > for fun, for interest, for learning, for testing other parts of the > process (like compilers), or to find new things to complain about. > Or for taking parts or the whole of the language to incorporate into a new project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 08:16 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <g6as7tF8pfgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #138392 |
On 30/11/2018 01:41, Bart wrote: > On 29/11/2018 12:04, David Brown wrote: >> On 28/11/18 16:06, Bart wrote: >> >>> Any 'yes' answers would indicate that there /is/ a problem. You are just >>> refusing to admit it, and refusing to admit I might have a point. > > > There is no /problem/ - certainly not with C or Linux. > > So when Java, C#, Rust, Go, Scala and D all decided to forego C's > treatment of types in favour of considerably more compact and > well-defined schemes, it wasn't because there was any problem at all > with C's approach. They also decided to forego C's flexibility and limit them selves to a small set of platforms. Go on an M16C? > I'm glad we sorted that out... Me too. -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lhYLD.669567$aw7.508974@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #138409 |
On 29/11/2018 19:16, Ian Collins wrote: > On 30/11/2018 01:41, Bart wrote: >> On 29/11/2018 12:04, David Brown wrote: >>> On 28/11/18 16:06, Bart wrote: >>> >>>> Any 'yes' answers would indicate that there /is/ a problem. You are >>>> just >>>> refusing to admit it, and refusing to admit I might have a point. >> >> > There is no /problem/ - certainly not with C or Linux. >> >> So when Java, C#, Rust, Go, Scala and D all decided to forego C's >> treatment of types in favour of considerably more compact and >> well-defined schemes, it wasn't because there was any problem at all >> with C's approach. > > They also decided to forego C's flexibility and limit them selves to a > small set of platforms. Go on an M16C? What are you saying, that any program, by virtue of being written in C (even a Go compiler) will automatically work on an M16C? And presumably any device for which a C compiler is available. In reality, you write applications for one class of hardware or another, not usually both. Those languages have acknowledged that, by targeting one class of hardware, allowing them to streamline their design. C on the other hand refuses to draw any such line, and insists on a single language that works in both camps. > They also decided to forego C's flexibility You don't see the irony there? In that it is those languages that can adapt themselves to be a close fit to that second class of hardware, while C still doesn't know if char is signed or unsigned. (Since M16C seems to have 8/16-bit capability, that can still fit into the 8/16/32/64 model which is the target of those languages. Any difficulties with 32/64-bit operations will be the same with C. So in theory, versions of D etc could be made to work, if anyone had the inclination. So you might have chosen a better example to show C's superiority.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 19:39 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <g6c48oF8pfgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #138410 |
On 30/11/2018 09:49, Bart wrote: > On 29/11/2018 19:16, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 01:41, Bart wrote >>> >>> So when Java, C#, Rust, Go, Scala and D all decided to forego C's >>> treatment of types in favour of considerably more compact and >>> well-defined schemes, it wasn't because there was any problem at all >>> with C's approach. >> >> They also decided to forego C's flexibility and limit them selves to a >> small set of platforms. Go on an M16C? > > What are you saying, that any program, by virtue of being written in C > (even a Go compiler) will automatically work on an M16C? And presumably > any device for which a C compiler is available. What I am saying is any program I write for an M16C or smaller micro can be built an run on my desktop. C's abstract types will take care of the architectural differences. > In reality, you write applications for one class of hardware or another, > not usually both. In reality, code (at least C code) is often written to run on a wide range of hardware. If I was writing code just for a desktop or sever, I probably wouldn't be using C... > Those languages have acknowledged that, by targeting one class of > hardware, allowing them to streamline their design. > > C on the other hand refuses to draw any such line, and insists on a > single language that works in both camps. With good reason. > > They also decided to forego C's flexibility > > You don't see the irony there? No, because there isn't any. -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 10:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptr3sq$efc$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #138420 |
In article <g6c48oF8pfgU2@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: ... >> You don't see the irony there? > >No, because there isn't any. Because I don't see it, it doesn't exist. -- Which of these is the crazier bit of right wing lunacy? 1) We've just had another mass shooting; now is not the time to be talking about gun control. 2) We've just had a massive hurricane; now is not the time to be talking about climate change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5ZgMD.763652$wF4.41204@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #138420 |
On 30/11/2018 06:39, Ian Collins wrote: > On 30/11/2018 09:49, Bart wrote: >> In reality, you write applications for one class of hardware or another, >> not usually both. > > In reality, code (at least C code) is often written to run on a wide > range of hardware. If I was writing code just for a desktop or sever, I > probably wouldn't be using C... So you don't think there's enough people using C on 64-bit desktop-class computers to warrant having a streamlined, tidied-up language for those machines? (And you presumably don't think that having produced such a product for 8/16/32/64-bit machines, that that baggage-free language couldn't then be adapted downwards to 8/16-bit devices.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c%gMD.841160$ZJ2.783076@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #138444 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 30/11/2018 06:39, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 09:49, Bart wrote: > >>> In reality, you write applications for one class of hardware or another, >>> not usually both. >> >> In reality, code (at least C code) is often written to run on a wide >> range of hardware. If I was writing code just for a desktop or sever, I >> probably wouldn't be using C... > >So you don't think there's enough people using C on 64-bit desktop-class >computers to warrant having a streamlined, tidied-up language for those >machines? He didn't say that, and if I were him, I'd be offended at your blatent misrepresentation. You truely are trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 10:13 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <g6dngjF8pfgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #138445 |
On 01/12/2018 09:23, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 30/11/2018 06:39, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 30/11/2018 09:49, Bart wrote: >> >>>> In reality, you write applications for one class of hardware or another, >>>> not usually both. >>> >>> In reality, code (at least C code) is often written to run on a wide >>> range of hardware. If I was writing code just for a desktop or sever, I >>> probably wouldn't be using C... >> >> So you don't think there's enough people using C on 64-bit desktop-class >> computers to warrant having a streamlined, tidied-up language for those >> machines? See the part of my reply you snipped. > He didn't say that, and if I were him, I'd be offended at your blatent > misrepresentation. > > You truely are trolling. Indeed. -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 22:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4DiMD.763656$wF4.275234@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #138448 |
On 30/11/2018 21:13, Ian Collins wrote: > On 01/12/2018 09:23, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 30/11/2018 06:39, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 30/11/2018 09:49, Bart wrote: >>> >>>>> In reality, you write applications for one class of hardware or >>>>> another, >>>>> not usually both. >>>> >>>> In reality, code (at least C code) is often written to run on a wide >>>> range of hardware. If I was writing code just for a desktop or >>>> sever, I >>>> probably wouldn't be using C... >>> >>> So you don't think there's enough people using C on 64-bit desktop-class >>> computers to warrant having a streamlined, tidied-up language for those >>> machines? > > See the part of my reply you snipped. These are the parts I snipped: > What I am saying is any program I write for an M16C or smaller micro > can be built an run on my desktop. C's abstract types will take care > of the architectural differences. > With good reason. > No, because there isn't any. I assume you mean that more substantial quote. That still seems to me as though you are dismissing the idea of a PC version of C. Note that that doesn't mean losing classic C; you can still use that for microprocessors, and those programs might still work on PCs (some of them anyway).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web