Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #130136
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" |
| Date | 2018-05-04 10:42 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <slrnpeoe82.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <N2BGC.55651$9t.43656@fx26.am4> <60bd8638-5456-4198-b08f-f0ab4927d1c1@googlegroups.com> <RWGGC.82874$eg.31796@fx43.am4> <0dmtre-63m.ln1@gangtai.grep.be> <%9WGC.105800$tw.57299@fx42.am4> |
bartc wrote: > On 04/05/2018 10:40, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On 03-05-18 18:39, bartc wrote: >>> On 03/05/2018 17:17, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> So the question is how to mark any such projects submitted. A reasonable >>>> answer is to mark them down as non-functional, and to warn students >>>> that this is the case. After all, in the workplace, if you're developing >>>> for Windows and hand in code that works on Linux but not Windows, the >>>> code >>>> will likely be spiked. >>> >>> Perhaps they can come with a makefile that will compile it for either OS. >> >> Yes, but that's not the point. >> >> The instructor is saying "I'm using Linux to test your solutions to the >> exercises. If they don't work there, you failed the test". This is just >> part of the setup of the exercise, and not too weird to ask his students. >> >> He could have said instead "I'll test your exercises on a Linux machine >> as well as on a Windows machine". If that were the case, then yes, a >> makefile that works on either OS would make sense. But why do that? It >> would require him to spend more effort, and he's not teaching "how to >> write portable C", he's teaching "how to write C". He has to pick an OS, >> and he picked Linux. Given the fact that Linux is free and allows to >> easily install a C programming environment, that seems like a reasonable >> choice. >> > > It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the > myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or > compatible machines. > > He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the > program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux > machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a > pariah. > I went to uni around the win2k / winXP migration funtimes. University labs, professor PCs, etc. were primarily XP, but some profs kept win2k around because it did what they needed (also, the whole "don't get a new version of Windows until SP1" bit). On more than one occasion, the test / project assignment / whatever included similar wording -- "This project MUST work on my office win2k machine. If you do not have a win2k machine, the lab DS-222 still has win2k machines for you to test on." -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"C Is Not a Low-level Language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:21 -0500
"C Is Not a Low-level Language" Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:35 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 02:07 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" 1alvinalbrecht1@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 21:48 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 02:14 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:45 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 02:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:14 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:12 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 21:18 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-06 15:44 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-07 09:47 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-07 22:03 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 06:46 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-08 20:59 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 10:03 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 07:58 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 20:18 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-19 15:49 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:58 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 10:58 +0100
Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-03 14:41 +0000
Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 16:02 +0100
Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:25 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 17:39 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 11:40 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:59 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 03:18 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:59 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:24 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 12:27 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:15 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:13 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:45 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 17:31 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 11:10 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 11:48 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 17:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 00:11 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:28 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-08 20:01 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-08 13:20 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-08 20:34 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 06:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-08 02:12 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 10:42 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:44 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:11 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 17:47 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 10:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 14:57 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:05 +1200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:01 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:51 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 13:14 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 15:19 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 14:38 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 13:56 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 16:24 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 07:36 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 06:01 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:57 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 06:49 +1200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 10:55 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:10 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 04:51 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 14:37 +0200
csiph-web