free c text book advice..
loonpainter
I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy... and
library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c beginning text
book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only basic. thanks.
--
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: cl...@plethora.net -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Richard Heathfield
> hi experts
>
> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy... and
> library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c beginning text
> book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only basic. thanks.
"The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/the_c_book.pdf
Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good. But
a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious rubbish,
so it may be just what you need.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Peter Nilsson
> I want to know which c text book is free. ...
--
Peter
santosh
> hi experts
>
> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy... and
> library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c beginning text
> book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only basic. thanks.
Do note that the group news:comp.std.c is for discussion of the C
Standards documents, so your post is not very topical there.
In addition to what Richard and Peter have mentioned, two other online
tutorials that are often cited are:
<http://www2.its.strath.ac.uk/courses/c/>
<http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/C/CE.html>
And also:
<http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark/CTutorial/CTutorial.html>
As far as complete textbooks go, 'The C Book' that Richard linked to
seems to be the only one freely available.
jacob navia
> loonpainter wrote:
>> hi experts
>>
>> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy... and
>> library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c beginning text
>> book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only basic. thanks.
>
> "The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
>
> http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/the_c_book.pdf
>
> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good. But
> a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious rubbish,
> so it may be just what you need.
>
standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
obseolete 89 standard.
Implicit int is used throghout:
main() {
}
is used in all examples.
Etc etc.
Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this book.
jacob navia
> hi experts
>
> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy... and
> library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c beginning text
> book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only basic. thanks.
I have written an introductory book for C, that goes with the lcc-win compiler system.
You can download those at no charge from
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Included is a C compilation system + a tutorial to C.
loonpainter
and wikibooks text book...i'll start with the wikibooks one. The C
Book says its for those already knowing programing...
thanks all:)
Seebs
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this book.
I would say that the quoted part of his post undermines this theory
significantly.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
osmium
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
>> loonpainter wrote:
>>> hi experts
>>>
>>> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy...
>>> and library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c
>>> beginning text book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only
>>> basic. thanks.
>>
>> "The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
>>
>> http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/the_c_book.pdf
>>
>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
>> But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious
>> rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
>>
> This is a misleading comment. That book is very old. No mention of
> standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
> obseolete 89 standard.
>
> Implicit int is used throghout:
>
> main() {
> }
>
> is used in all examples.
>
> Etc etc.
>
> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this
> book.
If you are going to contradict the post you are responding to, at least clip
the original post so at least some people do not know that you are making
things up.
In no way, shape or form did Heathfield recommend the book. Posts like this
do nothing at all to reduce the animosity between you and Heathfield.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>> loonpainter wrote:
>>> hi experts
>>>
>>> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy... and
>>> library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c beginning text
>>> book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only basic. thanks.
>>
>> "The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
>>
>> http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/the_c_book.pdf
>>
>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
>> But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious
>> rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
>>
> This is a misleading comment.
In what way?
> That book is very old. No mention of
> standard C as it is used today.
Perhaps not as you use it today - but it is undoubtedly true that C89
remains in wide use.
> All standard references are to the
> obseolete 89 standard.
The C99 Standard formally replaces C90 (i.e. basically C89), but in
practice C89 is far more widespread. That is not to say that a C99
tutorial would be unwelcome - far from it - but a C89 tutorial has the
advantage of being universally applicable.
>
> Implicit int is used throghout:
Unfortunate. But (IIRC) the same can be said of K&R2. That in itself
doesn't make it an implicitly bad book. It is, however, perfectly
reasonable to point out to the OP that:
>
> main() {
> }
should nowadays be written:
int main(void) {
return 0;
}
which compiles and is well-defined in both C90 and C99.
> is used in all examples.
>
> Etc etc.
>
> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this book.
Please feel free to recommend a C99 book that is legally available at no
cost.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> Included is a C compilation system + a tutorial to C.
What is your current attitude to bug reports for your tutorial?
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
jacob navia
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>>> loonpainter wrote:
>>>> hi experts
>>>>
>>>> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy...
>>>> and library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c
>>>> beginning text book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only
>>>> basic. thanks.
>>> "The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
>>>
>>> http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/the_c_book.pdf
>>>
>>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
>>> But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious
>>> rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
>>>
>> This is a misleading comment. That book is very old. No mention of
>> standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
>> obseolete 89 standard.
>>
>> Implicit int is used throghout:
>>
>> main() {
>> }
>>
>> is used in all examples.
>>
>> Etc etc.
>>
>> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this
>> book.
>
> If you are going to contradict the post you are responding to, at least clip
> the original post so at least some people do not know that you are making
> things up.
>
???? The quote from heathfield is still plaily visible!
What are you talking about?
> In no way, shape or form did Heathfield recommend the book.
Strange. He posted the URL azs an answer to:
What books are available.?
That is obviously NOT recommending that book.
Richard Heathfield
He's talking about your claim that I recommended the book. I did no such
thing. I haven't even *read* the book.
>
>> In no way, shape or form did Heathfield recommend the book.
>
> Strange. He posted the URL azs an answer to:
>
> What books are available.?
>
> That is obviously NOT recommending that book.
Just as there's a difference between "disagreeing with Jacob Navia" and
"lying", so there's a difference between "mentioning" and "recommending".
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Francis Glassborow
> osmium a écrit :
>> If you are going to contradict the post you are responding to, at
>> least clip the original post so at least some people do not know that
>> you are making things up.
>>
>
> ???? The quote from heathfield is still plaily visible!
> What are you talking about?
>
>> In no way, shape or form did Heathfield recommend the book.
>
> Strange. He posted the URL azs an answer to:
>
> What books are available.?
>
> That is obviously NOT recommending that book.
Actually that is true despite your sarcasm. He pointed to it and added a
rider that he had no idea about its quality other than a quick look did
not show obvious problems.
You have a lot of good things to say but you continue to attack people
rather than ideas and that is detrimental and reduces the perceived
value of your contributions.
Rob Kendrick
jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this
> >> book.
> >
> > If you are going to contradict the post you are responding to, at
> > least clip the original post so at least some people do not know
> > that you are making things up.
> >
>
> ???? The quote from heathfield is still plaily visible!
> What are you talking about?
Indeed, and so was this paragraph, which you clearly didn't read when
you decided to fly off the handle:
> >>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any
> >>> good. But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any
> >>> obvious rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
B.
Richard
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
If you're going to kiss Heathfield's arse then at least try to maintain
some modicum of decency. Throwing your panties at him too is too
much. Heathfield DID recommend the book.
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
Richard
> jacob navia wrote:
> <snip>
>> Included is a C compilation system + a tutorial to C.
>
> What is your current attitude to bug reports for your tutorial?
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within
Hopefully better than yours was for your book.
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
James Kuyper
> jacob navia wrote:
>>> jacob navia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
>>>>> loonpainter wrote:
>>>>>> hi experts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy...
>>>>>> and library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c
>>>>>> beginning text book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only
>>>>>> basic. thanks.
>>>>> "The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/the_c_book.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
>>>>> But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious
>>>>> rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
>>>> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this
>>>> book.
I'm curious - perhaps there is a French word cognate to "recommend"
which can be used to describe mentioning something without in any way
endorsing it? Maybe jacob is unaware of the fact that is incorrect to
use the English word "recommend" in that fashion?
Albert
<snip>
>>> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
<snip>
>>>> "The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
> Heathfield DID recommend the book.
No, he didn't. The third edition of the Australian Schoolmate File
Dictionary says that 'recommend' means
1 say that a person or thing would be a good one to do a job or achieve
something.
Clearly, there must be opinion, however weak, in a recommendation.
Heathfield posted a fact (which I have quoted), which doesn't have any
opinion.
Albert
Richard Heathfield
>> jacob navia wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
>>>>>> But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious
>>>>>> rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
> ...
>>>>> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this
>>>>> book.
>
> I'm curious - perhaps there is a French word cognate to "recommend"
> which can be used to describe mentioning something without in any way
> endorsing it? Maybe jacob is unaware of the fact that is incorrect to
> use the English word "recommend" in that fashion?
It's possible. I don't know French well enough to know. And perhaps
there is also a French word that Jacob translates into English as
"lied", but whose meaning in French is "said something that I believe
may be mistaken".
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Richard Heathfield
> Richard wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
> <snip>
>> Heathfield DID recommend the book.
>
> No, he didn't.
It doesn't matter that I didn't. Richard Nolastname is not interested in
the truth. He is interested only in being negative.
<snip>
> Clearly, there must be opinion, however weak, in a recommendation.
>
> Heathfield posted a fact (which I have quoted), which doesn't have any
> opinion.
Actually, you may have put your finger on an important truth. The trolls
amongst us seem only to be able to recognise (or take an interest in)
opinions. They don't seem to be able to handle objective facts. This may
be why they rarely post technical advice and it's usually wrong if they
do. It may also be why they jump to so many incorrect conclusions. The
syllogism may go like this: "this is an opinion; it is my opinion;
therefore it is correct"; or "this is an opinion; it does not agree with
my opinion; therefore it is incorrect". There is a certain amount of
logic to this (insofar as a sane, honest, objective person who
recognises that he holds an incorrect opinion will change his opinion),
but without that base level of sanity, honesty, and objectivity it is a
dangerously self-deceptive strategy. It is easy to believe you're always
right if you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Richard Bos
> >>> jacob navia wrote:
> >>>> Richard Heathfield a =EF=BF=BDcrit :
> >>>>> Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
> >>>>> But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious
> >>>>> rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
> ...
> >>>> Obvious, since heathfield doesn't like C99 that he recommends this
> >>>> book.
>
> I'm curious - perhaps there is a French word cognate to "recommend"=20
> which can be used to describe mentioning something without in any way=20
> endorsing it? Maybe jacob is unaware of the fact that is incorrect to=20
> use the English word "recommend" in that fashion?
Nope. The normal French word for "to recommend" is, surprise,
"recommander", which means "to recommend" (and a few secondary meanings
that are irrelevant here).
Richard
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> <http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark/CTutorial/CTutorial.html>
Please, no, stay away from this one. It is riddled with typographical
and factual errors, pseudo-jargon, hand-waving and plain bad advice.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
Antoninus Twink
> I'm curious - perhaps there is a French word cognate to "recommend"
> which can be used to describe mentioning something without in any way
> endorsing it? Maybe jacob is unaware of the fact that is incorrect to
> use the English word "recommend" in that fashion?
But Heathfield *did* recommended the book, in the common or garden sense
of "recommend", as understood by all native English speakers - and (as
far as I can tell) by Jacob too.
Antoninus Twink
> And perhaps there is also a French word that Jacob translates into
> English as "lied", but whose meaning in French is "said something that
> I believe may be mistaken".
His meaning is very clear - the same meaning as any native English
speaker gives to the word.
He means deliberately telling untruths - lying. You do it all the time,
Heathfield - Jacob is spot on.
Rob Kendrick
As a native speaker, I don't see this. What I do see is people being
needlessly and pointlessly argumentative and inflammatory for the sake
of it.
B.
Richard
Then your grasp of the language, as a native speaker, is poor. He did
recommend it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recommend
How you can deny this with a straight face is known only to you.
,----
| >>>> But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious
| >>>> rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
`----
With caveats of course. But recommend it he did.
jacob navia
> As a native speaker, I don't see this. What I do see is people being
> needlessly and pointlessly argumentative and inflammatory for the sake
> of it.
>
OK. Mr native.
If Heathfield did NOT recommend that book WHAT did he do?
A asked "I need a free book about C"
B answered "Use XXX" (with some caveats). He gives the URL and says it
doesn't look bad at first sight.
HOW would you call that action?
Note that dictionary.com says:
o present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use, etc.;
And that is EXACTLY the action of Mr heathfield.
But maybe dictionary.com aren't really native english speakers.
jacob navia
`----
>
> With caveats of course. But recommend it he did.
>
Of course, but they go on negating this evidence.
Antoninus Twink
> Richard a écrit :
>> With caveats of course. But recommend it he did.
>
> Of course, but they go on negating this evidence.
You must allow Heathfield his fun - playing games with words is all he
ever wants to do.
Squeamizh
> Richard wrote:
>
> <snip>>>> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
> <snip>
> >>>> "The C Book" is freely, legally downloadable:
> <snip>
> > Heathfield DID recommend the book.
>
> <snip>
>
> No, he didn't. The third edition of the Australian Schoolmate File
> Dictionary says that 'recommend' means
PUTTING THE GUN IN MY MOUTH AND PULLING THE TRIGGER UNTIL IT GOES DARK
GHAGFLFKAFDKF.
Please no dictionary wars. Ever again.
Seebs
> If Heathfield did NOT recommend that book WHAT did he do?
He mentioned it.
> o present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use, etc.;
He didn't, though. He explicitly DISCLAIMED stating that he'd evaluated
it beyond the level of an initial cursory glance. I've seen people think
Schildt books looked okay given only a cursory glance -- it's not a
recommendation. He specifically said that he was NOT asserting that it
was any good.
Richard Harter
The throuble with your argument is that you are misrepresenting
what Heathfield said. He did not say "Use XXX" with or without
caveats. Here is what he actually wrote:
Caveat: I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's
any good. But a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw
up any obvious rubbish, so it may be just what you need.
Did he say it was good? No, he did not. He said that he had no
idea whether it was any good. Likewise he did not say it was
worthy of confidence or acceptance. Did he say that it was
worthy of use? No. What he said was that on casual inspection
it had no obvious major fault. Since this is a fine point, let
me give an example: If I say of a certain man, I know of no evil
in this man, I am not thereby saying that there is any good in
him.
It is fair to say that Heathfield recommended considering the
book; it is not to say that he recommended using the book, nor
that he recommended the book.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
bartc
news:4b68a7c3...@text.giganews.com...
>>Note that dictionary.com says:
>>
>>o present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use, etc.;
>>
>>And that is EXACTLY the action of Mr heathfield.
>>
>>But maybe dictionary.com aren't really native english speakers.
> Did he say it was good? No, he did not. He said that he had no
> idea whether it was any good.
> It is fair to say that Heathfield recommended considering the
> book; it is not to say that he recommended using the book, nor
> that he recommended the book.
He mentioned the book because it was free, and online, which were the OP's
requirements.
(I've had a look and it looks heavy going...)
--
Bartc
Richard Heathfield
> Rob Kendrick a �crit :
>
>> As a native speaker, I don't see this. What I do see is people being
>> needlessly and pointlessly argumentative and inflammatory for the sake
>> of it.
>>
>
> OK. Mr native.
>
> If Heathfield did NOT recommend that book WHAT did he do?
I mentioned its existence and gave a URL from which it can be
downloaded. I also made it clear that I had not read the book, but had
only glimpsed at it briefly and, in that brief glimpse, had seen no
obvious screw-ups.
Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
<snip>
Rob Kendrick
> OK. Mr native.
>
> If Heathfield did NOT recommend that book WHAT did he do?
>
> A asked "I need a free book about C"
> B answered "Use XXX" (with some caveats). He gives the URL and says
> it doesn't look bad at first sight.
Again with the needlessly inflammatory language. Come back when you've
calmed down again, and I'll explain to you what everything you've
snipped means.
B.
Richard
What inflammatory language? He is getting frustrated that you seem
unable to understand the language you claim to be so masterful of.
If someone asks for a book online and someone else says "try this" then
that IS a recommendation. Now if you want to continue to make
yourself look like an arse then please do, but don't expect anyone to
take you too seriously.
Rob Kendrick
Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What inflammatory language? He is getting frustrated that you seem
> unable to understand the language you claim to be so masterful of.
It seems you're having trouble with the language, too. I never claimed
any such thing, and I'm sure you know that. And if you can't see the
tone in which Jacob's post was written, I have a small amount of pity
for you.
> If someone asks for a book online and someone else says "try this"
> then that IS a recommendation. Now if you want to continue to make
> yourself look like an arse then please do, but don't expect anyone to
> take you too seriously.
And of course, if all he said was "try this", you might be right. In
fact, he didn't even say "try this", he simply provided a link
somewhere, along with a disclaimer about not knowing if it was any good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD
Caveat: I've not tried it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
B.
Richard Harter
<r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
>newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
enough among bright progammers. It's a trap. People do not
respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
Seebs
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
><r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
>>newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
> This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
> Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
> enough among bright progammers. It's a trap. People do not
> respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
I gotta second that one. I can understand being angry with Jacob for
what he's been saying, but I don't think it makes him a complete idiot.
I disagree with him, but I can see someone reasonably assuming that
offering a link in response to a query is at least *normally* a
recommendation. I think the disclaimers adequately dispelled that, but...
Nick Keighley
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> >Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
> >newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
>
> This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
> Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
> enough among bright progammers. It's a trap. People do not
> respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
but there comes a point when their idocy is so plain that "complete
idiot" is the only way to describe them. I'll give Jacob a free pass
as he's a non-native speaker (though he does look like he just wants a
poke at Richard Heathfield) but Richard <noname> and twinky are just
arguing for the sake of arguing.
Actually calling themn "idiots" is to be offensive to people who have
genuine cognitive challenges. I'd rather deal with genuine but not
very bright people than the smart but contrary.
--
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
could believe in them." -- George Orwell
Richard Heathfield
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
>> newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
>
> This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
The kind of people whose hackles it would raise are already fully
up-hackled anyway.
> Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
> enough among bright progammers. It's a trap.
Actually, I rarely use the word. But, when I do, it's no trap.
> People do not
> respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
And I don't respond well to idiotic behaviour. So?
In any case, idiots don't respond well to *anything*. If anyone who
believes I have described them in that way wants to demonstrate that
they are not idiotic after all, that's entirely up to them and entirely
welcome. Non-idiots are always welcome.
Richard Heathfield
> On 2010-02-03, Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
>> <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
>>> newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
>
>> This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
>> Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
>> enough among bright progammers. It's a trap. People do not
>> respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
>
> I gotta second that one. I can understand being angry with Jacob for
> what he's been saying, but I don't think it makes him a complete idiot.
You don't? Well, okay, it's a free Usenet, I guess.
> I disagree with him, but I can see someone reasonably assuming that
> offering a link in response to a query is at least *normally* a
> recommendation. I think the disclaimers adequately dispelled that, but...
...but so would anyone with the capacity to read and understand English.
Anyone taking my article as a recommendation is being either
deliberately obtuse or appallingly stupid.
Richard
So when Heathfield googled up and posted a link that might help and gave a
guarded caveat you think that is NOT recommending?
So he posted a link to something he does NOT recommend?
Please. Use your noddle.
Seebs
> ...but so would anyone with the capacity to read and understand English.
> Anyone taking my article as a recommendation is being either
> deliberately obtuse or appallingly stupid.
I think it's well within the normal scope of the usual unconscious
filtering brains perform when interpreting other peoples' statements or
actions. I think it's wrong, but it's not an amazingly unreasonable
error, just a sort of mildly unreasonable error.
Nick Keighley
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On 3 Feb, 05:20, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
>
> >> >Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
> >> >newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
>
> >> This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
> >> Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
> >> enough among bright progammers. It's a trap. People do not
> >> respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
>
> > but there comes a point when their idocy is so plain that "complete
> > idiot" is the only way to describe them. I'll give Jacob a free pass
> > as he's a non-native speaker (though he does look like he just wants a
> > poke at Richard Heathfield) but Richard <noname> and twinky are just
> > arguing for the sake of arguing.
>
> > Actually calling themn "idiots" is to be offensive to people who have
> > genuine cognitive challenges. I'd rather deal with genuine but not
> > very bright people than the smart but contrary.
>
> > --
>
> > "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
> > could believe in them." -- George Orwell
>
> So when Heathfield googled up and posted a link that might help and gave a
> guarded caveat you think that is NOT recommending?
a very heavily guarded caveat; so yes that is NOT recommending. It's
odd which people read it one way and which the other (both ways
round).
santosh
> > >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> >
> > >> >Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
> > >> >newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
> > So when Heathfield googled up and posted a link that might help and gave a
> > guarded caveat you think that is NOT recommending?
>
> a very heavily guarded caveat; so yes that is NOT recommending. It's
> odd which people read it one way and which the other (both ways
> round).
That's right. Richard mentioned an option, a possibility, for the OP.
He didn't recommend it by a long shot.
Richard Tobin
Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So when Heathfield googled up and posted a link that might help and gave a
>guarded caveat you think that is NOT recommending?
It's certainly what I think.
>So he posted a link to something he does NOT recommend?
He posted a link to something that he neither recommends nor
disrecommends. What is odd about that?
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Michael Foukarakis
Ah, the human brain, the context-sensitive asshole. Most people just
see what they want to see, apparently.
Keith Thompson
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
>>newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
>
> This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
> Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
> enough among bright progammers. It's a trap. People do not
> respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
People do not usually respond well to harassment campaigns.
A few people here have spent years falsely accusing Richard
Heathfield of lying, of trolling, and of various other nasty things,
all without any basis in reality. Richard responds just a little
bit harshly, and suddenly it's his fault.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Squeamizh
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:14:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
>
> <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Only a complete idiot would consider that a recommendation. This
> >newsgroup appears to have no shortage of idiots.
>
> This sort of thing is one reason why you raise people's hackles.
> Calling people idiots, stupid, losers and the like is common
> enough among bright progammers. It's a trap. People do not
> respond well to perceived arrogance and condescension.
Eh, whatever. They truly are idiots. Saying "this book meets your
requested criteria, but I don't know if it's any good" is obviously
not a recommendation, and trying to argue civilly with someone who
disagrees is a big fat waste of time. This entire thread has become a
joke, and at this point, Richard Heathfield is justified in throwing
out any insults that come to mind.
Default User
> but there comes a point when their idocy is so plain that "complete
> idiot" is the only way to describe them. I'll give Jacob a free pass
> as he's a non-native speaker (though he does look like he just wants a
> poke at Richard Heathfield) but Richard <noname> and twinky are just
> arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which then raises the question, "why is anyone reading their posts, let
alone answering them?"
Brian
--
Day 366 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Richard
> Nick Keighley wrote:
>
>> but there comes a point when their idocy is so plain that "complete
>> idiot" is the only way to describe them. I'll give Jacob a free pass
>> as he's a non-native speaker (though he does look like he just wants a
>> poke at Richard Heathfield) but Richard <noname> and twinky are just
>> arguing for the sake of arguing.
>
> Which then raises the question, "why is anyone reading their posts, let
> alone answering them?"
>
> Brian
Primarily because we tend to offer a lot more about C than your
typically vacant, empty, useless follow up posts which seem to do
nothing but net nanny like you just did. Again.
That why.
santosh
> santosh <santo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > <http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark/CTutorial/CTutorial.html>
>
> Please, no, stay away from this one. It is riddled with typographical
> and factual errors, pseudo-jargon, hand-waving and plain bad advice.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Serves me right for giving a link without checking it out.
Albert
<snip>
> If Heathfield did NOT recommend that book WHAT did he do?
He put the title of a book in a sentence, in a reply.
Seebs
>> but there comes a point when their idocy is so plain that "complete
>> idiot" is the only way to describe them. I'll give Jacob a free pass
>> as he's a non-native speaker (though he does look like he just wants a
>> poke at Richard Heathfield) but Richard <noname> and twinky are just
>> arguing for the sake of arguing.
> Which then raises the question, "why is anyone reading their posts, let
> alone answering them?"
No clue. I plonked them as soon as I established that they were content-free.
Phil Carmody
Phil
--
Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
Albert
<snip>
> So when Heathfield googled up and posted a link that might help and gave a
> guarded caveat you think that is NOT recommending?
Yes.
> So he posted a link to something he does NOT recommend?
I don't know.
> Please. Use your noddle.
OK.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard wrote:
<snip>
>
>> So he posted a link to something he does NOT recommend?
>
> I don't know.
I can help you out there. I did post a link to the book, but I neither
recommend the book nor recommend against it. This should be obvious from
the fact that I haven't read it.
jacob navia
> Albert wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>>> So he posted a link to something he does NOT recommend?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
> I can help you out there. I did post a link to the book, but I neither
> recommend the book nor recommend against it. This should be obvious from
> the fact that I haven't read it.
>
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<quote>
I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good. But
a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious rubbish,
so it may be just what you need.
Rob Kendrick
jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > I can help you out there. I did post a link to the book, but I
> > neither recommend the book nor recommend against it. This should be
> > obvious from the fact that I haven't read it.
> >
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> <quote>
>
> I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good. But
> a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious rubbish,
> so it may be just what you need.
If flicking through a book for a few seconds counts as reading it, I
should update my CV as soon as possible.
B.
Richard Heathfield
Yes, that's what I said. As you can see from the text you quoted, I made
it very clear right at the outset that I haven't read the book, so I
have no idea whether it's any good. I am not sure why you posted this
confirmation that I haven't read the book and have no idea whether it's
any good and therefore cannot possibly be recommending it (or the
opposite), but I am glad you have posted this confirmation that I
haven't read the book and have no idea whether it's any good and
therefore cannot possibly be recommending it. Is everybody now happy to
agree that I haven't read the book and have no idea whether it's any
good (which I pointed out right at the start), and therefore cannot
possibly be recommending it? Just in case that isn't clear, I haven't
read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good.
Is *that* clear?
FCOL, furrfu, etc etc.
Ike Naar
Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> [...] furrfu [...]
Does rot13(vulgarize(x)) count as "wrongful use" of x?
Nick Keighley
Actually it wasn't the original "idiots" that set /me/ off. It was
being told I shouldn't call people idiots. It might upset them or
something.
bartc
news:SaednUlsB6GBA_fW...@bt.com...
> jacob navia wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>>> Albert wrote:
>>>> Richard wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So he posted a link to something he does NOT recommend?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>> I can help you out there. I did post a link to the book, but I neither
>>> recommend the book nor recommend against it. This should be obvious from
>>> the fact that I haven't read it.
>>>
>>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> <quote>
>>
>> I haven't read it, so I have no idea whether it's any good. But
>> a *very* quick glimpse through it didn't throw up any obvious rubbish,
>> so it may be just what you need.
>
> Yes, that's what I said. As you can see from the text you quoted, I made
> it very clear right at the outset that I haven't read the book, so I
> Is *that* clear?
I thought you hadn't recommended the book but now I'm not so sure.
If you weren't recommending or not recommending it (other than pointing out
it was free and online), what then was the purpose of the quick glimpse and
saying it wasn't obviously rubbish?
Wasn't the intention to help sway the OP one way or another by some small
amount? I would say that was part-recommendation.
--
Bartc
Richard Heathfield
> I thought you hadn't recommended the book but now I'm not so sure.
Read what I wrote in the original reply. Iterate until understanding
occurs. This may take some time.
Seebs
> If you weren't recommending or not recommending it (other than pointing out
> it was free and online), what then was the purpose of the quick glimpse and
> saying it wasn't obviously rubbish?
If I have a link and I think it may or may not be useful, I will usally take
a quick look at it to see whether it's sufficiently obviously horrible that
I would definitely not suggest it.
> Wasn't the intention to help sway the OP one way or another by some small
> amount? I would say that was part-recommendation.
If it was a "recommendation", it was of the damning with faint praise variety.
"Wasn't obviously rubbish" is something you wouldn't say if you had anything
at all positive to say. It's merely establishing a lower bound on quality.
On a 1-100 scale, you've said that it looks pretty likely that it's not going
to score under 20... That's not a recommendation, and the fact that you need
to say that about a link is itself just shy of being a disrecommendation.
If someone says "I am looking for food, where can I get food", and I say
"there is a Taco Bell about three blocks thataway, and I've eaten there and
not died", I am not *recommending* Taco Bell. I'm telling them that it
technically addresses the requirements they've given me so far, and that I
don't have a basis for recommending it. But that I also don't know that
it's disqualified... yet.
By contrast, if I said "well, there's the Froggy Bottoms pub, they're just
down thataway, mind the spiral stairs, and definitely get the steak-cut fries
if you have ever liked any food that had potatoes in it", that would be a
*recommendation*. I'd be saying not only that it's possible to go there, but
that it's a good idea.
-s
p.s.: And if you live near Northfield, MN, yes, it's a real recommendation.
I hadn't been there until just recently, but it's really pretty good.
stan
> In article <hkbd3k$tr0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>So he posted a link to something he does NOT recommend?
>
> He posted a link to something that he neither recommends nor
> disrecommends. What is odd about that?
There's nothing odd about that in the context of a normal reasonable
conversation; but here it can be misrepresented and used for yet
another time sucking, childish, waste of bandwidth.
On the other hand, I suspect that much of usenet is being used in
psychology classes. I can imagine the essay test questions:
Given this usenet exchange, what is wrong with this person?
(500 words or less)
Or possibly;
Given 5 minutes, find the person who exhibits the most
dysfunctional personality traits.
and so on ....
osmium
"stan" wrote:
Would longing to live in a communist paradise be considered a dysfunctional
trait?
The traits have to be weighted, of course. It would be unfair to equate
"detests gum on sidewalk" with "ravishes young boys".
Mark Hobley
> This is a misleading comment. That book is very old. No mention of
> standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
> obseolete 89 standard.
I like C89, and I think it is good practice to use it. It is compatible with
existing C compilers. Why break compatiblity with existing compilers by
introducing things that do not work with existing compilers?
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
Richard Heathfield
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> This is a misleading comment. That book is very old. No mention of
>> standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
>> obseolete 89 standard.
>
> I like C89,
So do I.
> and I think it is good practice to use it.
So do I.
> It is compatible with
> existing C compilers.
Or rather, existing C compilers are compatible with it. :-)
> Why break compatiblity with existing compilers by
> introducing things that do not work with existing compilers?
I can summarise the answer to that question in three words:
functionality, functionality, functionality.
Sometimes you just gotta. If your spec requires you to implement a
feature that cannot be achieved using only standard C89, then obviously
you have to go outside standard C89 in order to implement that spec. You
can wrap it up in a separate module, sure (and you'd be well-advised to
do that), but the non-standardinositude is still in there somewhere.
Portability has benefits and costs. Sometimes, portability is not the
overriding concern.
Nevertheless, write portable code when you can, and wrappers when you can't.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
jacob navia
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> This is a misleading comment. That book is very old. No mention of
>> standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
>> obseolete 89 standard.
>
> I like C89, and I think it is good practice to use it. It is compatible with
> existing C compilers. Why break compatiblity with existing compilers by
> introducing things that do not work with existing compilers?
>
> Mark.
>
Because if we would follow your advice nothing would ever get better
because we would break compatibility with old bugs.
You use 64 bit data?
You need long long and C99.
You need variable length arrays?
You need C99.
Etc!
Nobody is *forcing* you to use C99.
You can still use Turboc in msdos if you want to.
Keith Thompson
> Mark Hobley a écrit :
>> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>> This is a misleading comment. That book is very old. No mention of
>>> standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
>>> obseolete 89 standard.
>>
>> I like C89, and I think it is good practice to use it. It is compatible with
>> existing C compilers. Why break compatiblity with existing compilers by
>> introducing things that do not work with existing compilers?
>>
>
> because we would break compatibility with old bugs.
How so? If a programmer chooses to use C90, how does that prevent an
implementer from implementing C99?
> You use 64 bit data?
>
> You need long long and C99.
Probably so. There's nothing preventing a C90 compiler from providing
a 64-bit integer type (and calling it "long", or even "short"), but
unlike C99 it's not required. (If you're desperate you can build
64-bit arithmetic on top of something narrower, but I wouldn't do that
unless it was absolutely necessary.)
> You need variable length arrays?
>
> You need C99.
You never actually *need* variable length arrays. They're a
convenience, not a requirement. (And malloc has the advantage that
it lets you detect allocation failures.)
> Etc!
>
> Nobody is *forcing* you to use C99.
>
> You can still use Turboc in msdos if you want to.
Or you can use any modern C implementation in C90 mode, or just
choose not to use C99-specific features. C90 isn't limited to
obsolete compilers.
And most well-written C90 code *is* C99 code; it just doesn't use
all the features of the newer standard.
We all program in subsets of whatever language we're using.
If I don't happen to need setjmp and longjmp, for example,
I presume nobody is going to criticize me for not using them.
And if, hypothetically, a number of popular implementations didn't
support them properly, I'm guessing nobody would object if I warned
people about that and suggested workarounds. (I'm not aware of
any implementations that don't handle setjmp and longjmp properly;
as I said, that's a hypothetical example.)
But anyone who chooses to use a subset of C99 that excludes
C99-specific features, and who explains the perfectly valid reasons
for doing so (without insisting that anyone else should do the same)
is flamed, ridiculed, and falsely accused of waging a campaign
against C99.
[This thread is cross-posted to comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c.moderated,
and comp.std.c. I've dropped all but comp.lang.c.]
Richard Heathfield
> Mark Hobley a écrit :
>> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>> This is a misleading comment. That book is very old. No mention of
>>> standard C as it is used today. All standard references are to the
>>> obseolete 89 standard.
>>
>> I like C89, and I think it is good practice to use it. It is
>> compatible with
>> existing C compilers. Why break compatiblity with existing compilers by
>> introducing things that do not work with existing compilers?
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>
> Because if we would follow your advice nothing would ever get better
> because we would break compatibility with old bugs.
>
> You use 64 bit data?
>
> You need long long and C99.
C89 imposes no upper limit on the width of integer types. Implementors
are perfectly free to make, say, long int 64 bits wide (or wider still,
if they want).
> You need variable length arrays?
>
> You need C99.
Or malloc.
>
> Etc!
Etc.
> Nobody is *forcing* you to use C99.
Right.
> You can still use Turboc in msdos if you want to.
Sure. Or you can use the very latest edition of Microsoft Visual C. And
you won't find C99 conformance at either end of that spectrum.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Mark Hobley
> Nobody is *forcing* you to use C99.
Well, in theory no .. but open source is a problem, because people keep
using code that only works on a specific compiler (although admittedly that
problem is more to do with GCC than C99.)
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
Seebs
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> Nobody is *forcing* you to use C99.
> Well, in theory no .. but open source is a problem, because people keep
> using code that only works on a specific compiler (although admittedly that
> problem is more to do with GCC than C99.)
As one of the people who has recently written code that really does sorta
require C99 to compile:
In this particular case, it's a pragmatic observation; this code is so
intrinsically anti-portable (it intercepts ordinary library calls and
system calls) that I don't much care. But more generally, everything I've
seen any reason to try to use in the last few years has had the core
C99 parts I care about. That something is theoretically not fully compliant
with the IEEE floating point rules makes no difference to me; everything
I've had cause to use recently has compound literals, designated initializers,
mixed statements and code, declarations in the for loop, C++ comments,
and the officially-blessed struct hack.
-s
Mark Hobley
> words of wisdom
Good answer Richard! You have hit the nail on the head there! What you say
must be!
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
joag
> hi experts
>
> I want to know which c text book is free. i've no money to buy... and
> library has only c++ text books. so any link to free c beginning text
> book is needed. i'm not programmed before, but only basic. thanks.
this might sound interesting for you:
http://www.hitmill.com/programming/c.html#primers
--
/home/joag/pubkey.txt
bartc
news:clcm-2010...@plethora.net...
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> words of wisdom
I don't think RH actually wrote that.
>
> Good answer Richard! You have hit the nail on the head there! What you say
> must be!
As far as I could make out, he only mentioned C89, he didn't explicitly
recommend it.
--
Bartc
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> Sometimes you just gotta. If your spec requires you to implement a
> feature that cannot be achieved using only standard C89, then
> obviously you have to go outside standard C89 in order to implement
> that spec.
Are you saying C89 is not Turing-complete?
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
santosh
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> > Sometimes you just gotta. If your spec requires you to implement a
> > feature that cannot be achieved using only standard C89, then
> > obviously you have to go outside standard C89 in order to implement
> > that spec.
>
> Are you saying C89 is not Turing-complete?
I think most people use interfaces outside of those in ISO 9899:1990
not because the language defined in that document is not Turing-
complete, but because not doing so would be more hassle than is worth
sticking only to that document.
You can build a house with just a hammer, but...
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> Sometimes you just gotta. If your spec requires you to implement a
>> feature that cannot be achieved using only standard C89, then
>> obviously you have to go outside standard C89 in order to implement
>> that spec.
>
> Are you saying C89 is not Turing-complete?
Not at all. For example, the lack of sockets support in C89 does not
mean C89 is Turing-incomplete, does it? But if you need sockets, C89 on
its own won't do. (Neither will C99, in this case, but never mind that.)
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no> writes:
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> > > Sometimes you just gotta. If your spec requires you to implement a
> > > feature that cannot be achieved using only standard C89, then
> > > obviously you have to go outside standard C89 in order to
> > > implement that spec.
> > Are you saying C89 is not Turing-complete?
> Not at all. For example, the lack of sockets support in C89 does not
> mean C89 is Turing-incomplete, does it? But if you need sockets, C89
> on its own won't do. (Neither will C99, in this case, but never mind
> that.)
I believe the question was whether C99 had added features one couldn't
do without - or at least, that's how I interpreted it. I don't think it
has. That doesn't mean I advocate sticking with C89; C99 has several
useful features that make it easier to write portable code (<inttypes.h>
and <stdint.h>, for instance), as well as features that make it easier
for the programmer to provide additional (meta-)information about the
code, allowing the compiler to perform more aggressive optimization.
I'm well aware that there are few, if any, fully compliant C99
implementations, but there are plenty of hosted implementations that are
*good enough*; I consider gcc one of them, provided it is accompanied by
a good C library. The GNU C library is pretty good; so is FreeBSD's
libc, except for extensive namespace pollution.
The matter of additional libraries is IMHO orthogonal to this
discussion. There's very little you can do without going outside the
standard library, no matter what version of the standard your compiler
implements.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no> writes:
>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>>> Sometimes you just gotta. If your spec requires you to implement a
>>>> feature that cannot be achieved using only standard C89, then
>>>> obviously you have to go outside standard C89 in order to
>>>> implement that spec.
>>> Are you saying C89 is not Turing-complete?
>> Not at all. For example, the lack of sockets support in C89 does not
>> mean C89 is Turing-incomplete, does it? But if you need sockets, C89
>> on its own won't do. (Neither will C99, in this case, but never mind
>> that.)
>
> I believe the question was whether C99 had added features one couldn't
> do without - or at least, that's how I interpreted it.
Actually, so did I, but I couldn't think of any examples of that.
> I don't think it has.
Neither do I. Nevertheless, I don't insist that everybody sees things my
way. (It's nice when people return the compliment.)
> The matter of additional libraries is IMHO orthogonal to this
> discussion. There's very little you can do without going outside the
> standard library, no matter what version of the standard your compiler
> implements.
Well, perhaps we can agree to disagree on that.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within