A C tutorial

[jacob navia]

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

I have added quite a bit of material, and I would be
glad if people in this group give it a try and tell me if
I am saying nonsense somewhere.

Beware that I am not very orthodox, hence my tutorial
(and the associated compiler) is not just a tutorial about
ANSI C, but covers things like operator overloading and
other heresies :-)

And since it is running in a specific OS, windows
programming makes for quite a lot of pages. If you
use another OS however, the first part is (almost)
straight C.

jacob

[Dan Pop]

In <40******@news2.power.net.uk> Richard Heathfield <in*****@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Dan Pop wrote:

In <c0**********@sparta.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

>I think we're talking about different issues. Feel free to continue
>discussing the one that concerns you, if you must.

I was talking about the one you claimed it concerned you: malicious code
in your utilities. It seems that, after all, it was a false concern...

I was talking about not trusting Adobe.

You were talking about not trusting tools whose source code is not
publicly available, because they could contain malicious code.

I was talking about not trusting Adobe's tools whose source code is not
publicly available. I don't trust Adobe. Simple as that.

And I was explaining to you that even if it were, that would prove
exactly zilch, unless you compiled it with your hand made compiler.

Furthermore, there are open source PDF readers, so your point is moot,
anyway.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Dan Pop wrote:
... snip ...

>
> You were talking about not trusting tools whose source code is not
> publicly available, because they could contain malicious code.

I was talking about not trusting Adobe's tools whose source code is
not publicly available. I don't trust Adobe. Simple as that.

You must have some concrete reasons.

Yes, I do.
Are they shareable?

Not being a lawyer, I am not sure, and I'd rather not take the chance, given
their track record.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Joe Wright]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Dan Pop wrote:

... snip ...

>
> You were talking about not trusting tools whose source code is not
> publicly available, because they could contain malicious code.

I was talking about not trusting Adobe's tools whose source code is
not publicly available. I don't trust Adobe. Simple as that.

You must have some concrete reasons.

Yes, I do.

Are they shareable?

Not being a lawyer, I am not sure, and I'd rather not take the chance, given
their track record.

Like Chuck, I a also curious. I am considering purchasing Acrobat as we
speak. You haven't seemed particularly paranoiac in the recent past.
What gives? Adobe notwithstanding, what practices of a software company
violate your trust? (The lawyers can't get you for answering that one.
Maybe.)
--
Joe Wright http://www.jw-wright.com
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Slartibartfast]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<40******@news2.power.net.uk>...

CBFalconer wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Dan Pop wrote:
... snip ... >
> You were talking about not trusting tools whose source code is not
> publicly available, because they could contain malicious code.

I was talking about not trusting Adobe's tools whose source code is
not publicly available. I don't trust Adobe. Simple as that.

You must have some concrete reasons.

Yes, I do.

Are they shareable?

Not being a lawyer, I am not sure, and I'd rather not take the chance, given
their track record.

If they are true then the lawyers can't touch you. So spill.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:22:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard Heathfield
<in*****@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Thanks. I'll leave it at that, if I may. Like so many Usenet discussions,
this one has amplified a minor matter out of all proportion, and made it
seem like some huge deal. It isn't. I just don't trust Adobe, for reasons
which I don't care to share.

Richard, I'm going to be just a little bit rude here, and point out that
when I similarly said that I didn't plan to explain further, you said that
this showed I was in fact making it all up.

I hope that you will think a little about this, and realise that such sauce
can be poured over both birds.

I'm not saying I disbelieve you by the way.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:22:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard Heathfield
<in*****@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Thanks. I'll leave it at that, if I may. Like so many Usenet discussions,
this one has amplified a minor matter out of all proportion, and made it
seem like some huge deal. It isn't. I just don't trust Adobe, for reasons
which I don't care to share.

Richard, I'm going to be just a little bit rude here, and point out that
when I similarly said that I didn't plan to explain further, you said that
this showed I was in fact making it all up.

If that is true, it is certainly not rude to point it out. I am not in the
habit of accusing people of making stuff up, though*, and I don't in fact
recall saying any such thing. Of course, I may have said it and not
remembered that I said it.

(*Well, I can think of one obvious exception, but that's in another
newsgroup.)
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[James Dow Allen]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote in message news:<c0**********@sunnews.cern.ch>...

... I don't have to, because - since they're Open
Source - lots of people have done this already,

How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
doing it :-)

Good point! Reminds me of a certain bubble last century.

People believed the "efficient market hypothesis"; that stock
prices are kept correct by intelligent analysis. So no one bothered
doing any intelligent analysis, assuming an up-tick meant good news,
even though the up-tick was just caused by another idiot in the booth
next-door reacting to a previous up-tick.

Oh wait; this has nothing to do with comp.lang.c...

Well, making a connection to a previous message in this
thread (and since this is the "American century"):
*If you don't like this post, SUE ME!*

James