Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #129945 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-30 02:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-05-01 13:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 208 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
The case AGAINST C Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-30 02:10 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-04-30 03:14 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-30 05:48 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 14:58 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Davs <johndemeert0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 04:18 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:26 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 11:21 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 09:21 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 12:13 -0500
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 13:27 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-07 17:33 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 13:50 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:56 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 09:26 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 09:19 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 00:42 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 06:54 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 17:15 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 09:31 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 18:48 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 10:33 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:36 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 15:08 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 00:56 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 16:17 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-08 11:09 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:43 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 15:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 00:58 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 08:11 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 08:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 11:45 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 13:03 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 23:40 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 15:48 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-10 13:48 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-10 08:28 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-11 10:06 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 02:22 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:29 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-11 13:31 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-11 15:47 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-11 09:16 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-12 17:43 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-12 14:06 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 00:13 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 01:31 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-11 18:01 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:30 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-09 09:29 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:41 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 04:43 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 09:10 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-08 19:52 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:48 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-29 22:07 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 12:22 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-30 12:08 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 13:38 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:05 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-30 07:39 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Ed Kellett <e@kellett.im> - 2018-04-30 15:53 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-30 08:14 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 21:26 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:00 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 04:58 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 18:07 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 05:33 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 05:58 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 06:27 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 14:37 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 13:41 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 16:48 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:11 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:00 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 19:26 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 11:40 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 12:53 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 22:03 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:10 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 14:21 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:26 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 15:23 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-02 14:07 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-03 06:28 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 23:03 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:52 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 05:12 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 05:34 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-02 14:08 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:39 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 17:13 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:01 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 21:51 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 08:52 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 22:42 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 09:57 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 23:22 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:29 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 00:14 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 03:59 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 04:15 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 12:50 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:36 -0700
Of course I get it... (Was: The case AGAINST C) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-05-03 08:44 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:42 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:52 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:56 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:58 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 14:36 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-03 13:27 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 22:43 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-03 15:17 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 00:50 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 15:41 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 11:36 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:52 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 17:28 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 12:06 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-05 18:45 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-06 18:43 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:35 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-07 13:23 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 06:30 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 16:25 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:32 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:09 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 18:12 +0100
Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 14:07 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 20:03 +0200
Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 15:21 -0400
Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 13:07 -0700
Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 16:13 -0400
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:39 +0200
Re: Global variables Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 17:50 -0400
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:57 +0200
Re: Global variables Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 19:56 -0400
Re: Global variables Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-05-07 03:21 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 09:09 +0200
Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-07 08:49 -0700
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 20:55 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:51 +0200
Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:40 -0700
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 23:54 +0100
Re: Global variables Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 15:12 +1200
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 09:03 +0200
Re: Global variables Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 20:23 -0700
Re: Global variables Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:44 -0700
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-19 17:22 +0200
Re: Global variables supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-19 11:56 -0700
Re: Global variables supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-06 16:28 -0700
Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 14:19 -0400
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 20:16 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:09 +0200
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 23:41 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-03 09:13 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 17:29 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-05-03 19:24 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-04 05:46 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 10:55 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 04:03 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 12:31 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 05:10 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 13:24 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:26 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:35 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:06 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:37 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:19 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 12:07 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 16:31 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:41 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 09:50 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:04 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 13:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 14:30 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:14 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:18 -0500
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:05 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 17:55 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 10:54 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 19:18 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 11:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 16:45 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-05-04 11:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 12:15 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 21:56 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 17:01 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 17:54 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 13:38 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 21:49 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 17:19 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:16 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 23:55 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:59 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:46 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:45 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 06:10 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-05-02 15:23 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 17:36 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 22:03 +0800
Re: The case AGAINST C Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2018-05-01 13:46 +0000
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 12:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XGDFC.29978$ga6.20142@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #129954 |
On 2018-04-30, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 30/04/2018 03:10, Real Troll wrote: >> Dr P.J Moylan has written a paper to argue a case against using C. >> >> <ftp://ftp.pmoylan.org/papers/78.The_Case_Against_C.pdf> >> >> He argues that: >> >>> The misplaced loyalty to C is, in my >>> opinion, just as serious a problem among >>> professionals as the BASIC problem is among >>> amateurs. > > > A rather mild 'diatribe' (as he describes it). > > Many of the points no longer apply, as of course everyone could have > foreseen that 25 years later C compilers would solve some of the problems. > > Of more serious note these days is the domination of Unix-centric build > systems, configuration schemes, makefiles, and the C compilers that go > with that. Go outside that domain and nothing works. C is invented to build Unix... if some project requires binutils, you can't do nothing ;) -- press any key to continue or any other to quit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 13:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <X6EFC.131080$nr7.106752@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #129956 |
On 30/04/2018 13:08, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2018-04-30, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 30/04/2018 03:10, Real Troll wrote:
>>> Dr P.J Moylan has written a paper to argue a case against using C.
>>>
>>> <ftp://ftp.pmoylan.org/papers/78.The_Case_Against_C.pdf>
>>>
>>> He argues that:
>>>
>>>> The misplaced loyalty to C is, in my
>>>> opinion, just as serious a problem among
>>>> professionals as the BASIC problem is among
>>>> amateurs.
>>
>>
>> A rather mild 'diatribe' (as he describes it).
>>
>> Many of the points no longer apply, as of course everyone could have
>> foreseen that 25 years later C compilers would solve some of the problems.
>>
>> Of more serious note these days is the domination of Unix-centric build
>> systems, configuration schemes, makefiles, and the C compilers that go
>> with that. Go outside that domain and nothing works.
>
> C is invented to build Unix... if some project requires binutils, you
> can't do nothing ;)
That might have been the case in 1972. But I think we still need a
mainstream programming language at this level, and can do without the
partisanship.
If a project's source code - the code that ends up in the executable
programs and that does the work - is written in C, it should be possible
to build that project (convert from .h and .c files to executable
file/s) using a C compiler.
Nothing else. Except for the essential information as to which files
needed to be compiled, into which executables, and which external
libraries it might use.
(Installation and usage instructions are a separate matter, which would
equally apply to a binary download; this is about building from source.)
It is that information, which could often trivially be described as just
a list of modules (you don't even need English) which tends to be hidden
under layers of unnecessary complexity.
People don't understand this point because they are used to just
pressing a button ('make' or ./configure) which grinds through it all
and eventually it produces the result.
But outside of that environment, or trying understand the build
structure (to use non-standard compilers, or attempting to port it or
whatever), or for any reason it doesn't work, then it's a different story.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 06:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afd9932c-e794-4024-90a2-b42bc66c9073@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129957 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 5:38:23 AM UTC-7, Bart wrote:
> On 30/04/2018 13:08, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > On 2018-04-30, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> On 30/04/2018 03:10, Real Troll wrote:
> >>> Dr P.J Moylan has written a paper to argue a case against using C.
> >>>
> >>> <ftp://ftp.pmoylan.org/papers/78.The_Case_Against_C.pdf>
> >>>
> >>> He argues that:
> >>>
> >>>> The misplaced loyalty to C is, in my
> >>>> opinion, just as serious a problem among
> >>>> professionals as the BASIC problem is among
> >>>> amateurs.
> >>
> >>
> >> A rather mild 'diatribe' (as he describes it).
> >>
> >> Many of the points no longer apply, as of course everyone could have
> >> foreseen that 25 years later C compilers would solve some of the problems.
> >>
> >> Of more serious note these days is the domination of Unix-centric build
> >> systems, configuration schemes, makefiles, and the C compilers that go
> >> with that. Go outside that domain and nothing works.
> >
> > C is invented to build Unix... if some project requires binutils, you
> > can't do nothing ;)
>
> That might have been the case in 1972. But I think we still need a
> mainstream programming language at this level, and can do without the
> partisanship.
>
> If a project's source code - the code that ends up in the executable
> programs and that does the work - is written in C, it should be possible
> to build that project (convert from .h and .c files to executable
> file/s) using a C compiler.
>
> Nothing else. Except for the essential information as to which files
> needed to be compiled, into which executables, and which external
> libraries it might use.
>
> (Installation and usage instructions are a separate matter, which would
> equally apply to a binary download; this is about building from source.)
>
> It is that information, which could often trivially be described as just
> a list of modules (you don't even need English) which tends to be hidden
> under layers of unnecessary complexity.
>
> People don't understand this point because they are used to just
> pressing a button ('make' or ./configure) which grinds through it all
> and eventually it produces the result.
>
> But outside of that environment, or trying understand the build
> structure (to use non-standard compilers, or attempting to port it or
> whatever), or for any reason it doesn't work, then it's a different story.
>
>
> --
> bartc
Lines of text containing numbers and symbols. You can say I am Vennie Bowden for all I care.
Why does Vennie Bowden focus on Michael P.'s self-esteem issues so much? And what did Vennie Bowden have to say about this amazing support from new posters? Most of the time he would try to lead Michael P. to trust they're "honest and honorable" posters who just happened to have a detailed understanding of the history of the group. Doesn't pass the laugh test.
--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!
https://youtu.be/HMx0RyzbPgQ
Michael Glasser: Prescott Computer Guy
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c62c0e62-fb46-4c47-9666-0e7f26a8093a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129957 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 7:38:23 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > Nothing else. Except for the essential information as to which files > needed to be compiled, into which executables, and which external > libraries it might use. And which dialect of C is required (e.g. one which recognizes that an lvalue which is derived from another might actually be used to access the storage used by the parent, or one which figures that since the authors of the Standard didn't mandate such things there's no need for compilers to support them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Kellett <e@kellett.im> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 15:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pc7al0$aa5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129957 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2018-04-30 13:38, bartc wrote:
> If a project's source code - the code that ends up in the executable
> programs and that does the work - is written in C, it should be possible
> to build that project (convert from .h and .c files to executable
> file/s) using a C compiler.
>
> Nothing else. Except for the essential information as to which files
> needed to be compiled, into which executables, and which external
> libraries it might use.
You can't link to external libraries without a linker (cc(1) does more
than the standard requires)--is that an exception too?
Oh, and even cc(1) can't *make* static libraries. So I guess we just
can't have any of them ever.
> (Installation and usage instructions are a separate matter, which would
> equally apply to a binary download; this is about building from source.)
>
> It is that information, which could often trivially be described as just
> a list of modules (you don't even need English) which tends to be hidden
> under layers of unnecessary complexity.
>
> People don't understand this point because they are used to just
> pressing a button ('make' or ./configure) which grinds through it all
> and eventually it produces the result.
I don't like autotools either. But I think you're going too far. make(1)
isn't a complicated tool, and it isn't hard to do its job by hand, but
it's a significantly time-saving one.
> But outside of that environment, or trying understand the build
> structure (to use non-standard compilers, or attempting to port it or
> whatever), or for any reason it doesn't work, then it's a different story.
Have you ever found an exactly standard compiler? One of the motivating
cases for autotools is that you can't rely on much at all--even
standardized bits--existing across many systems.
The problem gets worse when you consider that C programs can't have any
effects apart from trivial file I/O by themselves. Non-standard, or at
least standardized by standards other than C, features are pretty much
essential for any real programs. So... how do you support more than one
target system in that case? Do you expect all your users to read your
instructions, figure out which C files they need to compile for their
host system, figure out the proper compiler invocation, figure out which
external libraries they need and what they're all called?
If you want autotools specifically to die, fine. I agree with you. It's
a horrible hacky mess. If you want *all build systems* to die you're
going to need to articulate some kind of alternative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d9c4f4c-c2b3-468c-be24-ba9ba3ea05ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129966 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:53:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Kellett wrote: > You can't link to external libraries without a linker (cc(1) does more > than the standard requires)--is that an exception too? The Standard requires that a hosted implementation link compiled C modules to other modules and to libraries containing all the functions mandated for hosted implementations. Projects that need to link to other functions not supplied in C source form or mandated by the Standard will have to be tailored to the form those other functions may take on various systems, but the Standard should require everything needed to build projects that don't rely upon anything other than C source and the Standard library.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <272f455a-ed11-4bd5-925a-aa2965cb64d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129967 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:15:05 AM UTC-7, supe...@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:53:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Kellett wrote: > > You can't link to external libraries without a linker (cc(1) does more > > than the standard requires)--is that an exception too? > > The Standard requires that a hosted implementation link compiled C modules > to other modules and to libraries containing all the functions mandated for > hosted implementations. Projects that need to link to other functions not > supplied in C source form or mandated by the Standard will have to be > tailored to the form those other functions may take on various systems, but > the Standard should require everything needed to build projects that don't > rely upon anything other than C source and the Standard library. Do not get too bigheaded, Staci 'The Moron' Elliot, sometimes "advocates" are just that. Of course I noted specific examples of Staci 'The Moron' Elliot twisting J Burns's words, stating quotable lies, etc. His response: to repeat the same nonsense. Was that meant to be your best shot? - Top 15 Ways Staci 'The Moron' Elliot Trolls https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/tzMH39QmAmU https://youtu.be/VxLiH-x0aeY Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a283968-f5d6-4210-a282-84fc7f31f7a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129966 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:53:28 PM UTC+1, Ed Kellett wrote: > > The problem gets worse when you consider that C programs can't have any > effects apart from trivial file I/O by themselves. Non-standard, or at > least standardized by standards other than C, features are pretty much > essential for any real programs. So... how do you support more than one > target system in that case? Do you expect all your users to read your > instructions, figure out which C files they need to compile for their > host system, figure out the proper compiler invocation, figure out which > external libraries they need and what they're all called? > Baby X, my widget toolkit, works essentially like that. There are file directories "common", "windows" and "linux". So to compile a Baby X programs, you include the files from "common" and one of "windows" and "linux". There are skeleton projects, but if the system breaks down for some reason then copy and pasting files should work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 04:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d654304d-f460-4cd8-bad4-9c7acf652fd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129969 |
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:00:40 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:53:28 PM UTC+1, Ed Kellett wrote: > > > > The problem gets worse when you consider that C programs can't have any > > effects apart from trivial file I/O by themselves. Non-standard, or at > > least standardized by standards other than C, features are pretty much > > essential for any real programs. So... how do you support more than one > > target system in that case? Do you expect all your users to read your > > instructions, figure out which C files they need to compile for their > > host system, figure out the proper compiler invocation, figure out which > > external libraries they need and what they're all called? > > > Baby X, my widget toolkit, works essentially like that. There are file > directories "common", "windows" and "linux". So to compile a Baby X > programs, you include the files from "common" and one of "windows" and > "linux". There are skeleton projects, but if the system breaks down > for some reason then copy and pasting files should work. Vennie Bowden clearly has a LOT of knowledge to contribute and he has been persuaded to give back to the community. Of course this is perhaps the most frustrating venue for doing that because much of what he will get back is wailing, double-crossing and other BS. You hacked it and benchmarked it and your "extensive experience" lead you to that assumption, so what? What I do is certainly technically correct. So, yeah, I buy into my own fancy, fully knowing ultred ragnusen has been fooled, because it makes me reconsider my script, improving it. Perhaps you use it erroneously. Do you not fathom the use of private networks? It was ultred ragnusen who stated that he and his students used to steal candy from toddlers all the time and it was no big deal, not even worth losing sleep over. I still am uncertain that these posts are not from Vennie Bowden, clearly they are from ultred ragnusen. Which regular knows JavaScript, is an IT "master", has hacked Vennie Bowden's ID, has poor impulse control and is a gigantic conniption-fit throwing redneck who, when he backs himself into a corner, posts ignorant claptrap even when he's _not_ flooding... AND... who struggles to pin everything *he* is doing on "anyone he can" and has for years? -- Do not click this link!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OffkiSAsYo8 http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 18:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <I3IFC.200196$CH6.97279@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #129966 |
On 30/04/2018 15:53, Ed Kellett wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 13:38, bartc wrote:
>> If a project's source code - the code that ends up in the executable
>> programs and that does the work - is written in C, it should be possible
>> to build that project (convert from .h and .c files to executable
>> file/s) using a C compiler.
>>
>> Nothing else. Except for the essential information as to which files
>> needed to be compiled, into which executables, and which external
>> libraries it might use.
>
> You can't link to external libraries without a linker (cc(1) does more
> than the standard requires)--is that an exception too?
>
> Oh, and even cc(1) can't *make* static libraries. So I guess we just
> can't have any of them ever.
Most C compilers I've seen can create executables via the same
executable used to run the compiler, even if they have to invoke a
separate program.
That's a detail of the compiler implementation. Outside of anything that
comes out of Unix or Linux, then if you have a compiler system, you also
have the means to link against external libraries.
(My own C compiler specifically splits the task into two executables,
for various reasons.
But, that's all there is: the two executables; no other files. Input is
.h and .c files; output is .exe.)
So, build instructions - expressed in English - might say which source
files to compile to object code, and which object code files and which
external libraries are combined to make an executable or a new library.
>> (Installation and usage instructions are a separate matter, which would
>> equally apply to a binary download; this is about building from source.)
>>
>> It is that information, which could often trivially be described as just
>> a list of modules (you don't even need English) which tends to be hidden
>> under layers of unnecessary complexity.
>>
>> People don't understand this point because they are used to just
>> pressing a button ('make' or ./configure) which grinds through it all
>> and eventually it produces the result.
>
> I don't like autotools either. But I think you're going too far. make(1)
> isn't a complicated tool, and it isn't hard to do its job by hand, but
> it's a significantly time-saving one.
It depends on how simply it is written. And how well it works. Usually
when I type 'make', some error comes up. And it will be different with
each compiler's make. And that's when it is /designed/ to work under
Windows.
> So... how do you support more than one
> target system in that case? Do you expect all your users to read your
> instructions, figure out which C files they need to compile for their
> host system, figure out the proper compiler invocation, figure out which
> external libraries they need and what they're all called?
Let's take my C compiler as an example project. Normally the C version I
have sometimes linked to is one source file, but taking the true
sources, and compiling them individually to C, then the list of modules
to be compiled is this:
mm_clib.c
mm_mainc.c
mm_nos.c ***
mm_mlib.c
cc_tables.c
cc_decls.c
cc_support.c
cc_headers.c
cc_lex.c
cc_lib.c
cc_parse.c
cc_libmcl.c
cc_blockmcl.c
cc_genmcl.c
cc_genasm.c
cc_start.c
Compile all those, then link into one program. There are no other files,
and doesn't really need any libraries except the C runtime. Hard wasn't it?
However this program is OS-neutral. If I wanted separate versions for
Windows and Linux, then it would be necessary to take the module marked
with *** and choose from one of these three versions:
mm_nos.c No OS (OS-neutral)
mm_windows.c Windows
mm_linux.c Linux
It's still not rocket science. (See example run-through after sig.)
(Note that this program running on Linux will be a cross-compiler for
Windows. This module is for functions such as LoadLibrary/dlopen that
defer across systems, although I don't believe this app makes much use
of those.)
> If you want autotools specifically to die, fine. I agree with you. It's
> a horrible hacky mess. If you want *all build systems* to die you're
> going to need to articulate some kind of alternative.
People have discussed alternatives. The reality is that those autotool
configuration schemes are not going anywhere.
--
bartc
-----------------------------
Directory containing relevant .c files, and input list 'files' for gcc
(hello.c is test input for later)
c:\zzz>dir/b
cc_blockmcl.c
cc_decls.c
cc_genasm.c
cc_genmcl.c
cc_headers.c
cc_lex.c
cc_lib.c
cc_libmcl.c
cc_parse.c
cc_start.c
cc_support.c
cc_tables.c
files
hello.c
mm_clib.c
mm_mainc.c
mm_mlib.c
mm_windows.c
c:\zzz>type files
cc_blockmcl.c
cc_decls.c
cc_genasm.c
cc_genmcl.c
cc_headers.c
cc_lex.c
cc_lib.c
cc_libmcl.c
cc_parse.c
cc_start.c
cc_support.c
cc_tables.c
mm_clib.c
mm_mainc.c
mm_mlib.c
mm_windows.c
c:\zzz>gcc @files -obcc.exe
c:\zzz>.\bcc hello # using .\ shows bcc.exe is local
BCC Compiling hello.c to hello.asm
c:\zzz>type hello.asm
!x64 output for hello.c
align 16
!------------------------------------
`main::
sub Dstack, 8
! -------------------------------------------------
sub Dstack, 32
mov D10, KK1
call `printf*
add Dstack, 32
L1:
! -------------------------------------------------
sub Dstack, 32
mov D10, 0
call exit*
!String Table
segment idata
align 8
KK1:db "Hello World!",10,0
c:\zzz>mxa hello # (Use already built program)
Assembling/linking hello.asm... to hello.exe
c:\zzz>.\hello
Hello World!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc052bf2-f407-4794-976e-76829b27ec72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129974 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 30 kwietnia 2018 19:08:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 30/04/2018 15:53, Ed Kellett wrote: > > On 2018-04-30 13:38, bartc wrote: > >> If a project's source code - the code that ends up in the executable > >> programs and that does the work - is written in C, it should be possible > >> to build that project (convert from .h and .c files to executable > >> file/s) using a C compiler. > >> > >> Nothing else. Except for the essential information as to which files > >> needed to be compiled, into which executables, and which external > >> libraries it might use. > > > > You can't link to external libraries without a linker (cc(1) does more > > than the standard requires)--is that an exception too? > > > > Oh, and even cc(1) can't *make* static libraries. So I guess we just > > can't have any of them ever. > > Most C compilers I've seen can create executables via the same > executable used to run the compiler, even if they have to invoke a > separate program. > > That's a detail of the compiler implementation. Outside of anything that > comes out of Unix or Linux, then if you have a compiler system, you also > have the means to link against external libraries. > > (My own C compiler specifically splits the task into two executables, > for various reasons. > > But, that's all there is: the two executables; no other files. Input is > .h and .c files; output is .exe.) > > So, build instructions - expressed in English - might say which source > files to compile to object code, and which object code files and which > external libraries are combined to make an executable or a new library. > the basic problem i see here may be stated (and i wanted even to state it before but was to lazy, also as i said this group hat to much language to less programming) 1. should c have something like universal (i mean on c standard level) 'prroject' file, or 2. it can better go even without that (right now those project file analog i personalu use are bat files, but they are not standarised (they are also like build language, thus some generalisation over a 'project' concept thugh simple)... by some coments ago i was saying that in fact those information you use in those build scripts you could eventually contain in source itself right now i still cant answer which way i think could be better obvious remark that todau build systems are unstandarized (also possibly ugly) and it is bad its obviously rather hard to deny ;c ... (im not a specialist in em hovever, i prefer bats over make which i dont know coz im just windows owner..yawn)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <981c3fff-f71b-466f-b2bd-0885fd226426@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129993 |
W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:33:56 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 30 kwietnia 2018 19:08:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: > > On 30/04/2018 15:53, Ed Kellett wrote: > > > On 2018-04-30 13:38, bartc wrote: > > >> If a project's source code - the code that ends up in the executable > > >> programs and that does the work - is written in C, it should be possible > > >> to build that project (convert from .h and .c files to executable > > >> file/s) using a C compiler. > > >> > > >> Nothing else. Except for the essential information as to which files > > >> needed to be compiled, into which executables, and which external > > >> libraries it might use. > > > > > > You can't link to external libraries without a linker (cc(1) does more > > > than the standard requires)--is that an exception too? > > > > > > Oh, and even cc(1) can't *make* static libraries. So I guess we just > > > can't have any of them ever. > > > > Most C compilers I've seen can create executables via the same > > executable used to run the compiler, even if they have to invoke a > > separate program. > > > > That's a detail of the compiler implementation. Outside of anything that > > comes out of Unix or Linux, then if you have a compiler system, you also > > have the means to link against external libraries. > > > > (My own C compiler specifically splits the task into two executables, > > for various reasons. > > > > But, that's all there is: the two executables; no other files. Input is > > .h and .c files; output is .exe.) > > > > So, build instructions - expressed in English - might say which source > > files to compile to object code, and which object code files and which > > external libraries are combined to make an executable or a new library. > > > > the basic problem i see here may be stated > (and i wanted even to state it before but was to lazy, also as i said this group hat to much language to less programming) > > 1. should c have something like universal (i mean on c standard level) 'prroject' file, > or > 2. it can better go even without that > > (right now those project file analog i personalu use are bat files, but they are not standarised (they are also like build language, thus some generalisation over a 'project' concept thugh simple)... > > by some coments ago i was saying that in fact those information you use in those build scripts you could eventually contain in source itself > > right now i still cant answer which way i think could be better > > obvious remark that todau build systems are unstandarized (also possibly ugly) and it is bad its obviously rather hard to deny ;c ... (im not a specialist in em hovever, i prefer bats over make which i dont know > coz im just windows owner..yawn) the chaos that this unstandarisation brings seem to be tremendous (as even between versions of gcc/mingw the options afair get obsolete works differently etc, not to say variety of systems and compilers) but as it is i think generally understood could you bartc stop repeating it becouse of this maniacal repeating you act sorta like hodgin maniac, though 1) when hodgin repeats his maniacal nonsenses on bible and so on 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1cb01b7e-fcfb-4c24-bec4-0602034b0fee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129994 |
W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me you may take it (some doubts there hovever 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell 3) (related to 2) there is in fact some doubt if this was in fact good work (becouse this is less 'discovery' more 'popularisation' ) hovever there is also a doub how much really people are conscious to that fact (that build systems are bad, and lack of their standaristation is bad) some less some more i think... i can hovever say for sure that nearly everybody if just not everybody sees in practice this is not working good ;c (for me the clear consciousnes on this fact made me to be personally be a fan of dll's and a distribution of libraries in that form.. the option to download other peoples sources and compile it myself is avoided as much as i can)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 14:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <54_FC.66716$ta2.4920@fx03.am4> |
| In reply to | #129996 |
On 01/05/2018 14:27, fir wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: >> 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' > > besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad > as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me > you may take it (some doubts there hovever > 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell What's annoying is being unable to build open source software. Otherwise I never use such systems, so don't care. For my own use, I make efforts to keep my own projects small, easy to build, and independent of anything else. Bringing up the subject probably won't make any difference, but you never know. People have forgotten the virtue of simplicity. > the option to download other peoples sources and compile it myself is avoided as much as i can) So do I. But sometimes it is useful, sometimes it is necessary (for example to make use of gmp on Windows).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <08_FC.30249$7b4.14428@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #129997 |
On 2018-05-01, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 01/05/2018 14:27, fir wrote: >> W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: >>> 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' >> >> besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad >> as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me >> you may take it (some doubts there hovever >> 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell > > What's annoying is being unable to build open source software. Tell that to ones that make visual studio project files... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 16:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1%%FC.75161$oo.53941@fx35.am4> |
| In reply to | #129998 |
On 01/05/2018 14:41, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 2018-05-01, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 01/05/2018 14:27, fir wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: >>>> 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' >>> >>> besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad >>> as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me >>> you may take it (some doubts there hovever >>> 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell >> >> What's annoying is being unable to build open source software. > > Tell that to ones that make visual studio project files... You're talking about the problems of using those anywhere outside VS or outside Windows? I'd have to agree. I've rarely got them to work even *with* VS running *on* Windows. (Try building CPython on Windows which requires not only VS, but half a dozen other apps too.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68cef7a6-adc2-4112-a218-0b97642af027@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130001 |
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:48:22 AM UTC-7, Bart wrote: > On 01/05/2018 14:41, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On 2018-05-01, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 01/05/2018 14:27, fir wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > >>>> 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' > >>> > >>> besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad > >>> as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me > >>> you may take it (some doubts there hovever > >>> 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell > >> > >> What's annoying is being unable to build open source software. > > > > Tell that to ones that make visual studio project files... > > You're talking about the problems of using those anywhere outside VS or > outside Windows? > > I'd have to agree. I've rarely got them to work even *with* VS running > *on* Windows. (Try building CPython on Windows which requires not only > VS, but half a dozen other apps too.) > > -- > bartc Just nonsense from him. But Vennie Bowden has completely left technology behind and is holding me culpable for the deeds of himself. Everyone is Vennie Bowden -- the oldest gag in the book. Oh goodness, that is just tons of crapola. Only what Vennie Bowden wants matters to Vennie Bowden. There is nothing Staci M. Elliot can do to change that. It's a personality defect and it is what it is. Vennie Bowden would have to be suffering from a form of insanity to be unsure of whether or not he "once had" built a program. Ring any bells? When someone can't tell the same tale one day and the next and applies dishonest, face saving rot later, it's acutely clear what his trolling is. -- Eight things to never feed your dog https://youtu.be/VxLiH-x0aeY Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7371a825-33bc-4723-9ed7-18f23f55e76a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129997 |
W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 15:37:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 01/05/2018 14:27, fir wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > >> 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' > > > > besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad > > as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me > > you may take it (some doubts there hovever > > 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell > > What's annoying is being unable to build open source software. > sorry but annoying is your proces of repeating it - its like repeating "2+2=4".. its right but repeating it so much is annoying and what you repeat about this build system is sorta right but sorta known and sorta banal - you could decreasy the annoyance factor (instead you know the next decade will still be the same 10 years of bartc complaining on build systems in c.. that could kill anybody.. sorry) (firr, needing a need for selfimprovement btw, but to weak to do it now [sorry by this stub, i just in some moments feel i should be brainsharper and i see i miss my moments]) > Otherwise I never use such systems, so don't care. For my own use, I > make efforts to keep my own projects small, easy to build, and > independent of anything else. > > Bringing up the subject probably won't make any difference, but you > never know. People have forgotten the virtue of simplicity. > > > the option to download other peoples sources and compile it myself is avoided as much as i can) > > So do I. But sometimes it is useful, sometimes it is necessary (for > example to make use of gmp on Windows).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 19:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kj2GC.35845$9t.13059@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #130004 |
On 01/05/2018 19:00, fir wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 15:37:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: >> On 01/05/2018 14:27, fir wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: >>>> 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' >>> >>> besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad >>> as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me >>> you may take it (some doubts there hovever >>> 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell >> >> What's annoying is being unable to build open source software. >> > > sorry but > annoying is your proces of repeating it - its like repeating "2+2=4".. its right Thanks. Someone agrees with me at least. Many of my posts are replying to people who keep defending those systems, and who keep insinuating that the problem is with me, not them. In that case sorry, but I'm going to defend myself. > but repeating it so much is annoying Use a kill-file if it's that much of a problem for you. I have to wade through a lot of boring stuff myself, including most of your posts, but it's not my job to impose my preferences on an open public forum. > and what you repeat about this build system > is sorta right but sorta known and sorta banal - you could decreasy the annoyance factor (instead you know the next decade will still be the same 10 years of bartc complaining on build systems in c If they still don't work and I really need to build something I might well say something about it. But you will know that if there's a build system that is troublesome, then it hasn't come from me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adf481d0-46f7-4e64-b6b7-80253abd5548@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130005 |
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > Many of my posts are replying to people who keep defending those > systems, and who keep insinuating that the problem is with me, not them. > In that case sorry, but I'm going to defend myself. For some reason, it seems popular to assume that the only C implementations that matter are Unix-based ones, and anyone who wants to build code that was designed *on* a such an implementation should be expected to use such an implementation to build it, whether or not anything in the code would otherwise be Unix-specific. Personally, I think that a language standard which is going to specify things in terms of complete implementations should define some means of representing a complete program that would include all information that implementations would need about it, and was flexible to satisfy at least the majority of use cases where people need C programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web