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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #103347 > unrolled thread

Is it legal to download K&R from this site ?

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

Contents

  Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:09 +0330
    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-07 12:17 +0100
      Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 19:44 +0330
        Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 09:47 +0100
          Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 04:25 -0800
            Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-11 10:18 -0500
              Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:02 -0800
                Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-11 10:32 -0800
                  Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 11:17 -0800
                    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-11 11:46 -0800
                      Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:25 -0800
                        Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-11 13:29 -0800
                          Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-02-11 22:59 +0000
                          Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2017-02-11 18:14 -0500
                          Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 04:08 +0100
                    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Flippie Flink <flip@flink.not> - 2017-02-11 23:44 +0100
                Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-11 13:36 -0500
                  Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2017-02-11 18:21 -0500
                Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-13 13:56 +0100
                  Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 14:06 +0100
                    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-13 15:05 +0100
                    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-13 10:38 -0500
              Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-12 01:38 -0600
                Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-12 09:47 -0500
              Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-12 14:15 -0800
              Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-14 12:25 +0000
                Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-14 11:55 -0500
                  Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-14 09:30 -0800
                Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-14 09:06 -0800
                  Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-15 21:04 +0000
            Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-11 08:58 -0800
            Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-14 12:23 +0000
              Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:08 +0100
            Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 11:13 +0000
              Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 07:36 -0800
                Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:18 -0800
        Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-09 08:15 -0800
    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-07 08:35 -0800
    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-02-12 00:01 -0400
      Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:32 +0330
        Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-02-12 01:55 -0400
        Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-12 09:50 -0500
          Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-02-12 14:45 -0400
    Re: Is it legal to download K&R from this site ? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 09:33 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#103800

On 13/02/17 14:06, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:56:23 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>> I don't use every feature of C90 in my programming - does that mean I
>> should use K&R C instead?  Your "argument" here is just silly.
> 
> The latest K&R C is C90. If you don't use all C90 features you can use
> pre-standard C but without garantee to be portable that's all. ;-)
> 

No, I can't use pre-standard C.  The point was that void's argument is
silly - the fact that a particular programmer might not use /every/
feature of a particular standard does /not/ mean that it is a good idea
to work to a previous standard.

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

#103811

On 02/13/2017 08:06 AM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:56:23 +0100
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> I don't use every feature of C90 in my programming - does that mean I
>> should use K&R C instead?  Your "argument" here is just silly.
>
> The latest K&R C is C90. ...

As a general rule, people use the term "K&R C" in order to distinguish 
it from "C90". Since the 2nd edition of K&R did it's best to match the 
C89 standard (which had not quite been finalized as of the publication 
date), and C89 is essentially identical to C90 (except for three extra 
sections at the beginning), "K&R C" is normally used to refer to the 
language described by the 1st edition of K&R.

> ... If you don't use all C90 features you can use
> pre-standard C but without garantee to be portable that's all. ;-)

Did you mean "If you don't use any of the features that were new in C90 
or later standards ..."? With that change, it becomes a true statement.

Restricting yourself to pre-standard C would be pretty ridiculous - 
function prototypes made life a lot easier for C programmers. I know 
that from direct personal experience. Every program that I ever 
converted from K&R C to C90 had at least one bug that had gone unnoticed 
until it was revealed by my addition of prototypes.

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

#103715

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:18:06 -0500, "James R. Kuyper"
<jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

>C99 is almost completely implemented by all of the popular compilers. If 
>one of those compilers isn't installed, I would pressure the SAs to 
>install it. If a feature I'd like to use isn't implemented, I'd pressure 
>the implementor to add that feature. I don't see a point in insisting on 
>conforming to an ancient version of the standard when it's entirely 
>feasible to use almost the entirety of C99 on almost all platforms.


That depends on if you consider MSVC a popular compiler or not.  OTOH,
since MS now also supports clang, you can compile C99 (and C11) code
with that.

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

#103726

On 02/12/2017 02:38 AM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:18:06 -0500, "James R. Kuyper"
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> C99 is almost completely implemented by all of the popular compilers. If
...
>
> That depends on if you consider MSVC a popular compiler or not.  OTOH,

Sorry - I should have said "... most of the popular compilers."

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

#103765

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:18:14 AM UTC-6, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> C99 is almost completely implemented by all of the popular compilers. If 
> one of those compilers isn't installed, I would pressure the SAs to 
> install it. If a feature I'd like to use isn't implemented, I'd pressure 
> the implementor to add that feature. I don't see a point in insisting on 
> conforming to an ancient version of the standard when it's entirely 
> feasible to use almost the entirety of C99 on almost all platforms.

If one wants to write code to work on a PC and doesn't have to link with
anything old, C99 may be just fine.  If one needs to write code for a
compiler which isn't targeted by gcc, or one needs to interface with
existing code for a development system that is neither source-code nor
object-code compatible with gcc, then upgrading to a new development system
may be a lot more expensive than using the existing one, especially if the
existing code base has proven itself reliable.  Sometimes reworking
everything to use a new development system can be worthwhile, but such a
course of action should not be taken lightly.

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

#103872

"James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

> n1570.pdf is almost identical to the final C2011 standard, having only 
> one known error, and is also available for free.

For the record, what is that error?

Richard

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

#103888

On 02/14/2017 07:25 AM, Richard Bos wrote:
> "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> n1570.pdf is almost identical to the final C2011 standard, having only 
>> one known error, and is also available for free.
> 
> For the record, what is that error?

It incorrectly indicates that _Alignof() can be applied to an
expression, just like sizeof(). That's how it was originally specified,
but between the creation of n1570.pdf and approval of the final draft,
the committee decided to remove that feature.

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

#103896

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 02/14/2017 07:25 AM, Richard Bos wrote:
>> "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> n1570.pdf is almost identical to the final C2011 standard, having only 
>>> one known error, and is also available for free.
>> 
>> For the record, what is that error?
>
> It incorrectly indicates that _Alignof() can be applied to an
> expression, just like sizeof(). That's how it was originally specified,
> but between the creation of n1570.pdf and approval of the final draft,
> the committee decided to remove that feature.

Not quite.  Both N1570 and the final standard indicate in the grammar
that _Alignof can only be applied to a parenthesized type name.  The
error in N1570 is that it includes the operand of _Alignof as a 4th
exception to the rule that array expressions are converted to pointer
expressions.

-- 
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]

#103892

raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>> n1570.pdf is almost identical to the final C2011 standard, having only 
>> one known error, and is also available for free.
>
> For the record, what is that error?

There are three contexts in which an array expression is not implicitly
converted to a pointer expression.  N1570 6.3.2.1p3 incorrectly adds a
fourth, the operand of _Alignof.  C11 corrects that.

In fact the _Alignof operator, unlike the sizeof operator, can only be
applied to a parenthesized type name, not to an expression.  (The reason
for that is unclear.)

I think there are a few minor editorial differences.  IIRC the standard
is more consistent than N1570 about saying that an expression *yields*,
rather than *returns*, a result.

-- 
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]

#103967

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

> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> > "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> n1570.pdf is almost identical to the final C2011 standard, having only 
> >> one known error, and is also available for free.
> >
> > For the record, what is that error?
> 
> There are three contexts in which an array expression is not implicitly
> converted to a pointer expression.  N1570 6.3.2.1p3 incorrectly adds a
> fourth, the operand of _Alignof.  C11 corrects that.

Ah, right. That makes sense: it's reasonable that on some systems,
objects in arrays could have different alignment requirements than
individual ones.

> In fact the _Alignof operator, unlike the sizeof operator, can only be
> applied to a parenthesized type name, not to an expression.  (The reason
> for that is unclear.)

No, I don't understand that, either.

Richard

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

#103682

void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> C90 is fully implemented by most popular compilers while C99 and C11
> don't. Thus K&R is the only common denomiator for C programmers and by
> far cheaper than any ISO paper. Once more new features aren't
> outstanding...

That's not really true any longer.  For example, gcc and clang are
pretty much up to date with C11.  (glibc, the library most commonly used
with those compilers, doesn't implement <threads.h>, but that's optional
anyway.)

If you need to use Microsoft's C compiler there are likely to be some
issues (last I heard it only had partial C99 support), but otherwise
you're probably reasonably safe using C99 or even C11.  (There's
something going on with Visual Studio shipping with clang, but I don't
know the details.)

-- 
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]

#103871

void <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> wrote:

> C90 is fully implemented by most popular compilers while C99 and C11 don't. Thus K&R is the only common denomiator for C programmers and by far cheaper than any ISO paper. Once more new features aren't outstanding...

That's just as poor an excuse to be a thief as Google Gropes is a poor
excuse not to comply with netiquette.

Richard

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

#103876

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:23:06 GMT
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

> That's just as poor an excuse to be a thief as Google Gropes is a poor
> excuse not to comply with netiquette.
> 
> Richard

What's the netiquette? Some kind of excuse to serve the net lords... :-P

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

#104183

void wrote:
> Thus K&R is the only common denomiator for C programmers and by far
> cheaper

... and more instructive ...

> than any ISO paper. Once more new features aren't outstanding...

robert

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

#104194

Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> writes:
> void wrote:
>> Thus K&R is the only common denomiator for C programmers and by far
>> cheaper
>
> ... and more instructive ...
>
>> than any ISO paper. Once more new features aren't outstanding...

That depends on the programmer.  I certainly refer to (drafts of) the
ISO standard more often than K&R.  YMMV.

-- 
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]

#104214

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

> Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> writes:
>> void wrote:
>>> Thus K&R is the only common denomiator for C programmers and by far
>>> cheaper
>>
>> ... and more instructive ...
>>
>>> than any ISO paper.  Once more new features aren't outstanding...
>
> That depends on the programmer.  I certainly refer to (drafts of) the
> ISO standard more often than K&R.  YMMV.

But you already know C fairly well - you aren't refering to
the ISO documents for their instructive value.

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

#103526

MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> writes:

> On 02/07/2017 02:47 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 07/02/17 11:39, MehdiAmini wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can I download the book from the provided link ?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://caryney.us/the_c_programming_language_second_edition.pdf
>>
>> The book is old, but still on sale both as physical copies and ebook
>> formats.  It is still often recommended as an introduction to C, and
>> also as a fine example of good technical writing, though it does not
>> cover more modern C standards (C99 and C11).
>
> I like C90 better than C99 or C11.
>
>> Since it is popular to buy, I do not expect there to be any legal way to
>> get a free download and you should be wary of any site offering it.
>
> So maybe for now I have to stick to latest C89 Draft.

I don't know why someone would prefer C90 these days if they had
a choice, but even if you do you should also get a copy of the
latest revision of C99, and perhaps also the most recent C11
draft.  These documents are a bit better organized than C89, and
easier to read than the ASCII C89 drafts that most people use.
Also it helps to be able to ask questions and follow discussions
here if you have access to the section numbering used in C99
and/or C11 (C90 uses somewhat different numbering).  Copies of
the C99 and C11 documents can be downloaded at no cost -

  C99  http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf
  C11  http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf

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

#103377

MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> writes:
> Can I download the book from the provided link ?
>
>
> http://[DELETED]/the_c_programming_language_second_edition.pdf

That's actually a link to a site that appears to offer some kind of
subscription with a free trial.  I seriously doubt that it's possible to
get a legal free copy of an ebook of K&R2; it's still under copyright.

I see some very cheap used paper copies on Amazon.

-- 
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]

#103712

On 07/02/2017 10:39 AM, MehdiAmini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can I download the book from the provided link ?
>
>
> http://caryney.us/the_c_programming_language_second_edition.pdf
>
You will just waste time reading that old book.  You really need to use 
your brain and get a new book that covers how to write Windows 
Applications on VS or C++ builder.  Writing "Hello World!" program is 
not going to teach you anything.

Go to your local church instead.!!!  Ask Rick what is taught in the church.

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

#103713

On 02/12/2017 07:31 AM, Real Troll wrote:
> On 07/02/2017 10:39 AM, MehdiAmini wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can I download the book from the provided link ?
>>
>>
>> http://caryney.us/the_c_programming_language_second_edition.pdf
>>

> You will just waste time reading that old book.

I read that book years ago. And I suppose I did not waste my time 
reading it. I wanted to use the book as a reference.

> You really need to use
> your brain and get a new book that covers how to write Windows
> Applications on VS or C++ builder.  Writing "Hello World!" program is
> not going to teach you anything.
>

I already use my brain and for now I am on linux.

> Go to your local church instead.!!!  Ask Rick what is taught in the church.

I am not a Christian.

-- 
Farewell.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web