Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #54232 > unrolled thread

"Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"

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

Contents

  "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2014-12-10 18:17 -0600
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2014-12-10 22:55 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 09:01 +0000
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 02:41 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 11:08 +0000
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-16 13:06 +0000
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 13:14 +0000
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-16 07:29 -0800
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-16 16:23 +0000
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 17:23 -0800
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-16 18:06 -0800
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-17 07:35 -0800
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-17 16:01 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-18 10:30 -0800
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-20 18:45 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-20 11:58 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2014-12-12 11:15 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 04:11 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-11 17:36 +0100
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:44 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-11 17:53 +0100
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 09:57 -0800
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-11 15:21 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "ocq (an evil corporate man)" <ocq@maili.ng> - 2014-12-12 11:14 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-11 05:06 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 05:48 -0800
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 06:17 -0800
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2014-12-13 10:22 +0000
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-13 10:34 +0000
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-13 14:04 +0000
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-13 07:42 -0800
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-13 20:52 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 00:23 -0800
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-14 12:07 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 13:20 +0000
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-14 22:43 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 01:33 +0000
                      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 02:39 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 03:16 -0800
                      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 17:24 +0000
                        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 18:01 +0000
                          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:25 -0800
                            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-16 08:46 -0500
                              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 05:59 -0800
                                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-17 08:21 -0500
                                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-17 07:27 -0800
                              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 14:29 +0000
                          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-16 08:51 -0500
                            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 14:30 +0000
                        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 10:02 -0800
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-14 00:36 +0000
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-14 01:22 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-14 07:35 +0000
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-12-14 04:39 -0800
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-14 08:14 -0500
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 08:02 -0800
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 04:52 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-13 06:39 -0800
          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-13 15:57 -0600
            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-15 09:51 -0600
              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-15 20:30 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-15 21:29 +0000
                Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-15 21:23 -0600
                  Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-16 04:14 +0000
                    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-16 09:11 -0600
                      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-16 13:13 -0600
                        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-16 19:27 +0000
                          Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-16 16:11 -0600
                            Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-16 14:39 -0800
                              Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-16 18:25 -0600
        Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-16 05:13 -0800
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:28 -0800
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-11 17:29 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2014-12-11 17:59 +0000
      Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-11 19:05 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" Rosario193 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2014-12-12 11:37 +0100
    Re: "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:49 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#54232 — "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"

"Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
    http://news.dice.com/2014/12/08/c-still-relevant-21st-century/

"Many programming languages have come and gone since Dennis Ritchie devised C in 1972, and yet C has not only survived three major 
revisions, but continues to thrive. Large chunks of Windows were written in C, along with most of Linux."

Lynn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#54233

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:17:38 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"

interesting question, but, the answer must be yes. as long as there are a significant numbers of programs that use the language to develop major solutions it certainly still has a place.

an aside though.. i wish that today's c programming specs didn't use the terminology object to describe things in the language. i wish that was left only to those languages claiming to be object oriented programming languages. well, see, object means, well to me, having methods and attributes.
but, yes, it's fine though, in tech one needs to adjust to the "other way" when it proves to be useful and valuable... and be flexible...

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

#54235

G G wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:17:38 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
> 
> interesting question, but, the answer must be yes. as long as there are a
> significant numbers of programs that use the language to develop major
> solutions it certainly still has a place.
> 
> an aside though.. i wish that today's c programming specs didn't use the
> terminology object to describe things in the language.

The word "object" has been used in that way, C's way, since long before C 
was written. First come, first served. The OO languages can find a different 
O to O to.

-- 
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]

#54654

Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:

> G G wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:17:38 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>> 
>> interesting question, but, the answer must be yes. as long as
>> there are a significant numbers of programs that use the language
>> to develop major solutions it certainly still has a place.
>> 
>> an aside though.. i wish that today's c programming specs didn't
>> use the terminology object to describe things in the language.
>
> The word "object" has been used in that way, C's way, since long
> before C was written. [snip]

I believe you are incorrect.  Can you provide a citation?  (Note
that the "object" in "object files" is not the same meaning as
"object" as it is used in the C standard.)

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

#54660

Tim Rentsch wrote:

> Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> 
>> G G wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:17:38 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>>> 
>>> interesting question, but, the answer must be yes. as long as
>>> there are a significant numbers of programs that use the language
>>> to develop major solutions it certainly still has a place.
>>> 
>>> an aside though.. i wish that today's c programming specs didn't
>>> use the terminology object to describe things in the language.
>>
>> The word "object" has been used in that way, C's way, since long
>> before C was written. [snip]
> 
> I believe you are incorrect.  Can you provide a citation?  (Note
> that the "object" in "object files" is not the same meaning as
> "object" as it is used in the C standard.)

Normally I can't, because my reading is generally directed at my own 
education rather than at providing proofs (i.e. I don't normally bother to 
remember where I read something). I feared that would be the case on this 
occasion, too, but at the last moment Bruce MacLennan [1983] pointed me to 
this John Backus paper from 1977:

http://www.thocp.net/biographies/papers/backus_turingaward_lecture.pdf

which is littered with references to 'objects' as in 'stuff' (as opposed to 
'object' as in 'OOP' or object as in 'object code/file').

Will that do?

-- 
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]

#54684

Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:

> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:
<snip>
>>> The word "object" has been used in that way, C's way, since long
>>> before C was written. [snip]
>> 
>> I believe you are incorrect.  Can you provide a citation?
<snip>
> Normally I can't, because my reading is generally directed at my own 
> education rather than at providing proofs (i.e. I don't normally bother to 
> remember where I read something). I feared that would be the case on this 
> occasion, too, but at the last moment Bruce MacLennan [1983] pointed me to 
> this John Backus paper from 1977:

That's not "long before C was written", but see below...

> http://www.thocp.net/biographies/papers/backus_turingaward_lecture.pdf
>
> which is littered with references to 'objects' as in 'stuff' (as opposed to 
> 'object' as in 'OOP' or object as in 'object code/file').

Documents relating to the three most commonly cited influences on C (B,
BCPL and Algol 68) all appear to use the term in ways very similar to
the way it is used in C.  For example, the Algol 68 revised report says:

  Whereas ALGOL 60 ... implies a "stack"-oriented storage-allocation
  regime, sufficient to cope with objects having nested lifetimes (an
  object created before another object being guaranteed not to become
  inaccessible before that second one), ALGOL 68 provides, in addition,
  the ability to create and manipulate objects whose lifetimes are not
  so restricted.

But it also uses the term in a more general sense -- objects are just
the things a program operates on.

The use in the BCPL manual (1967) is rather vague (it's just a pile of
bits that represent a value) and the usage in the B manual, as you'd
expect, is simply the same as C's.

I don't have a proper citation for the B manual, but the BCPL reference
manual is MIT Memorandum M-352, 1967, by Martin Richards.  The ALgol 68
revised report is easy to find.

-- 
Ben.

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

#54687

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> <snip>
>>>> The word "object" has been used in that way, C's way, since long
>>>> before C was written. [snip]
>>> 
>>> I believe you are incorrect.  Can you provide a citation?
> <snip>
>> Normally I can't, because my reading is generally directed at my own
>> education rather than at providing proofs (i.e. I don't normally bother
>> to remember where I read something). I feared that would be the case on
>> this occasion, too, but at the last moment Bruce MacLennan [1983] pointed
>> me to this John Backus paper from 1977:
> 
> That's not "long before C was written",

I know, but it was the best I could do at short notice. You appear to have 
done rather better.

<snip>

-- 
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]

#54708

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
[...]
> The use in the BCPL manual (1967) is rather vague (it's just a pile of
> bits that represent a value) and the usage in the B manual, as you'd
> expect, is simply the same as C's.
>
> I don't have a proper citation for the B manual, but the BCPL reference
> manual is MIT Memorandum M-352, 1967, by Martin Richards.  The ALgol 68
> revised report is easy to find.

(Context: the meaning of "object".)

Actually, the usage in the B manual is closer to that in BCPL than to
the modern C meaning:

    An rvalue is a binary bit pattern of a fixed length.  On the PDP-11
    it is 16 bits.  Objects are rvalues of different kinds such as
    integers, labels, vectors, and functions.  The actual kind of object
    represented is called the type of the rvalue.

An "rvalue" in B is close to what C calls the result of evaluating an
expression, but expressed more concretely.  If I understand this
correctly, B would call the result of evaluating 2+2 an "object".

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#54713

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> [...]
>> The use in the BCPL manual (1967) is rather vague (it's just a pile of
>> bits that represent a value) and the usage in the B manual, as you'd
>> expect, is simply the same as C's.
>>
>> I don't have a proper citation for the B manual, but the BCPL reference
>> manual is MIT Memorandum M-352, 1967, by Martin Richards.  The ALgol 68
>> revised report is easy to find.
>
> (Context: the meaning of "object".)
>
> Actually, the usage in the B manual is closer to that in BCPL than to
> the modern C meaning:
>
>     An rvalue is a binary bit pattern of a fixed length.  On the PDP-11
>     it is 16 bits.  Objects are rvalues of different kinds such as
>     integers, labels, vectors, and functions.  The actual kind of object
>     represented is called the type of the rvalue.

Yes, that's very close to BCPL's usage.  I was looking at this text

  The simple external definition allocates storage for an external
  object and optionally initializes it; the forms are:

     name ;
  or name ival ;

which is very C-like, though still open to interpretation.

BTW, I think we were looking at different documents because the one I
have does not include the exact text you quoted (but I've now found that
one -- the original AT&T memorandum).

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#54796

Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:

> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> G G wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:17:38 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>>>> 
>>>> interesting question, but, the answer must be yes. as long as
>>>> there are a significant numbers of programs that use the language
>>>> to develop major solutions it certainly still has a place.
>>>> 
>>>> an aside though.. i wish that today's c programming specs didn't
>>>> use the terminology object to describe things in the language.
>>>
>>> The word "object" has been used in that way, C's way, since long
>>> before C was written. [snip]
>> 
>> I believe you are incorrect.  Can you provide a citation?  (Note
>> that the "object" in "object files" is not the same meaning as
>> "object" as it is used in the C standard.)
>
> Normally I can't, because my reading is generally directed at my
> own education rather than at providing proofs (i.e.  I don't
> normally bother to remember where I read something).  I feared
> that would be the case on this occasion, too, but at the last
> moment Bruce MacLennan [1983] pointed me to this John Backus paper
> from 1977:
>
> http://www.thocp.net/biographies/papers/backus_turingaward_lecture.pdf
>
> which is littered with references to 'objects' as in 'stuff' (as
> opposed to 'object' as in 'OOP' or object as in 'object
> code/file').
>
> Will that do?

Taking this document and the others mentioned in the followup
postings in reverse chronological order:

The Backus paper (1977) uses "object" to mean something like
"abstract data value", eg, a list or a tuple (but not a function)
is an "object".  This meaning is not the same as 'object' in the
C standard.

The Revised Algol 68 Report (1973) uses "object" to refer to a
variety of computational entities, including for example program
source text.  The set of entities covered may include what in the
ISO C standard is called an object, but the meaning of "object"
in the Algol 68 report is not the same as 'object' in the C
standard.

The B manual (1969) uses "object" to refer to different kinds of
computational values, including "integers, labels, vectors and
functions", but these are all values ("rvalues" in the manual's
terminology), not memory locations.  This quote is relevant:  "An
lvalue is a bit pattern representing a storage location containing
an rvalue."  So an "object" in B is different from a storage
location that might happen to hold such an rvalue.  This meaning is
not the same as 'object' in the C standard.

The BCPL manual (1967) uses "object" in the same way as B, not
counting minor changes in wording, eg, capitalizing Rvalue and
Lvalue (hardly surprising considering the close relationship
between the two languages).  So again this meaning is not the
same as 'object' in the C standard.

Do you have any other candidates?  AFAIAA there is no usage of
'object' as the term is used in the ANSI/ISO standards before
about 1985.  Even if "object" was used (in the same sense as C
uses it now) in the original K&R, which I think it was not, that
still doesn't put it before the "object" of "object oriented
programming".  So I think the ball is still in your court here.

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

#54797

Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
> Do you have any other candidates?  AFAIAA there is no usage of
> 'object' as the term is used in the ANSI/ISO standards before
> about 1985.  Even if "object" was used (in the same sense as C
> uses it now) in the original K&R, which I think it was not, that
> still doesn't put it before the "object" of "object oriented
> programming".  So I think the ball is still in your court here.


The 1974 and 1975 versions of the C Reference Manual,
    http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman74.pdf
    http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman.pdf
define the term "object":

    An object is a manipulatable region of storage; an lvalue is an
    expression referring to an object.

K&R1 (1978) uses the same wording.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#54851

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> [...]
>> Do you have any other candidates?  AFAIAA there is no usage of
>> 'object' as the term is used in the ANSI/ISO standards before
>> about 1985.  Even if "object" was used (in the same sense as C
>> uses it now) in the original K&R, which I think it was not, that
>> still doesn't put it before the "object" of "object oriented
>> programming".  So I think the ball is still in your court here.
>
>
> The 1974 and 1975 versions of the C Reference Manual,
>     http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman74.pdf
>     http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cman.pdf
> define the term "object":
>
>     An object is a manipulatable region of storage; an lvalue is an
>     expression referring to an object.
>
> K&R1 (1978) uses the same wording.

Good, that's useful to know (and it shows how long it's been
since I read K&R).  Thank you.

On the other hand, none of these uses occurred "long before C
was written", nor do they predate the usage of "object" in
the sense of "object oriented programming".  The first Smalltalk
was done in 1972 (and the usage may precede that by a few years,
but I would need to check on that).

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

#54854

Tim Rentsch wrote:

<snip>
 
> On the other hand, none of these uses occurred "long before C
> was written", nor do they predate the usage of "object" in
> the sense of "object oriented programming".  The first Smalltalk
> was done in 1972 (and the usage may precede that by a few years,
> but I would need to check on that).

Tim, you've made your point (insofar as it consists of demonstrating that I 
haven't made mine, at least not to your satisfaction).

-- 
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]

#54985

Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes:

> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>  
>> On the other hand, none of these uses occurred "long before C
>> was written", nor do they predate the usage of "object" in
>> the sense of "object oriented programming".  The first Smalltalk
>> was done in 1972 (and the usage may precede that by a few years,
>> but I would need to check on that).
>
> Tim, you've made your point (insofar as it consists of
> demonstrating that I haven't made mine, at least not to your
> satisfaction).

That depends on what point it is I was trying to make,
don't you think?  Or if I was even trying to make a
point at all.

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

#55158

On Wed, 2014-12-17, Tim Rentsch wrote:
...
> On the other hand, none of these uses occurred "long before C
> was written", nor do they predate the usage of "object" in
> the sense of "object oriented programming".  The first Smalltalk
> was done in 1972 (and the usage may precede that by a few years,
> but I would need to check on that).

Simula (the language which C++ got its objects from) was at least five
years earlier, in 1967.  I'm too lazy to find out what terminology was
used back then, though.

/Jorgen

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

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

#55165

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:

> On Wed, 2014-12-17, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> ...
>> On the other hand, none of these uses occurred "long before C
>> was written", nor do they predate the usage of "object" in
>> the sense of "object oriented programming".  The first Smalltalk
>> was done in 1972 (and the usage may precede that by a few years,
>> but I would need to check on that).
>
> Simula (the language which C++ got its objects from) was at least
> five years earlier, in 1967.  I'm too lazy to find out what
> terminology was used back then, though.

I programmed in Simula back in the 1970's, and also read the
"Simula BEGIN" book.  I don't remember it using the term
"object", but by then I was already familiar with the term
"object oriented programming", and I may have not noticed
just because it didn't stick out.

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

#54345

On 12/11/14 07:55, G G wrote:
> an aside though.. i wish that today's c programming specs didn't use the terminology object to describe things in the language. i wish that was left only to those languages claiming to be object oriented programming languages. well, see, object means, well to me, having methods and attributes.
> but, yes, it's fine though, in tech one needs to adjust to the "other way" when it proves to be useful and valuable... and be flexible...

you realize "object" is just the educated way to say "thing"?

Thomas

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

#54242

W dniu czwartek, 11 grudnia 2014 01:17:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Lynn McGuire napisał:
> "Is C Still Relevant in the 21st Century?"
>     http://news.dice.com/2014/12/08/c-still-relevant-21st-century/
> 
> "Many programming languages have come and gone since Dennis Ritchie devised C in 1972, and yet C has not only survived three major 
> revisions, but continues to thrive. Large chunks of Windows were written in C, along with most of Linux."
> 
> Lynn

in my opinion (and i feel i know what im saying) is the best language of all languages next and before, 

of it has little holes, teh most important one is that the thing now looks like

foo(in_x, in_y, *out_x, *out_y);

should just look like

out_x, out_y = foo(in_x, in_y);

also header should be throw out and changed to

module prog;
links windows, math, stdio;

void main()
{
 //...
}

but those are just some repairs in its fundaments C is enormously wise and great

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

#54272

fir wrote on day 2014‒12‒11:
>module prog;
>links windows, math, stdio;
who would care about what he is using if there is anyway and he would
must declare he is using it for compiler? it՚s relict of times when
names of symbol could be the same, and when… what… does header files
represent some compatibility if used as whole files? rather not.

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

#54274

W dniu czwartek, 11 grudnia 2014 17:36:57 UTC+1 użytkownik ocq (an evil corporate man) napisał:
> fir wrote on day 2014‒12‒11:
> >module prog;
> >links windows, math, stdio;
> who would care about what he is using if there is anyway and he would
> must declare he is using it for compiler? it՚s relict of times when
> names of symbol could be the same, and when… what… does header files
> represent some compatibility if used as whole files? rather not.

not understood you

here windows, math, obj are modle (lib) names, not symbols
could use it like 


module prog;

links windows.lib, math.o, stdio.lib, some_inline.c;

void main() 
{
   double x = sin(2.0);
  //or
   double y = math sin(2.0); 
//math is skipabble module prefix (good for resolving sympols conflicts)
  
}

headers should do not exist, whole declatations should be embodied in modules where now only symbol names are embodied

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web