Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6111
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... |
| Date | 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <n61ds0$sn0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <n6063m$ccb$1@dont-email.me> <n60m14$lf$1@dont-email.me> <87h9j06ip1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n610v9$afu$1@dont-email.me> <87wprv679l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
On 30/12/15 19:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> BASIC - tricky one. ISO/IEC 10279 defines the language, but I couldn't >> find a freely available draft. > > There's an ISO standard BASIC? Well, gosub 100 and call me structured. > I don't think it has integers, let alone unsigned ones, but I could not > find anything definitive. There is, you're structured, I'm fairly sure it does, I doubt whether it does, and neither could I (in that order). > > A more interesting letter 'C' for me (and probably for you too) would be > Cryptol. It has no signed arithmetic at all making -1 < 1 false. I'll take a look when I get five minutes. > >> I ran out of time to extend this alphabetical list any further, > > And just before my favourite -- Haskell. Yep, I was going to choose Haskell. But since it's your favourite, how does Haskell deal with signedness/unsignedness? -- 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
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 20:31 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-12-29 21:20 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-29 23:13 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 22:19 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 09:56 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 13:28 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 14:55 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:32 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 15:48 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:35 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:19 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:26 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:55 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +1300
csiph-web