By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
445,918 Members | 2,279 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,918 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Do you have the C or C++ standard? (serious question)

P: n/a

Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 29 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
56 Replies


P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
Yes, both hard copy and PDF.

--
Ian Collins.
Sep 29 '06 #2

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

This will not work. Who will say in public

"I do not have the standard's copy" ???

This is a biased question. Everybody will swear you they have it
and they read it every night... when they can't sleep.

:-)

jacob
Sep 29 '06 #3

P: n/a
In article <45***********************@news.orange.fr>, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
> Hi,
It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or
C++ programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language
standard of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

This will not work. Who will say in public
"I do not have the standard's copy" ???
This is a biased question. Everybody will swear you they have it
and they read it every night... when they can't sleep.
I have asked this question in several places and the majority have said
they do not have a copy of the language standard for c or C++

Many have the K&R2 or the BS books but as far as most are concerned the
compiler manuals are more important than the standard.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 29 '06 #4

P: n/a
"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:+I**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard of
your own or is there one on your desk at work?
No, I don't have a copy of the standard for C or C++ and I think that most
programmers don't.
Sep 29 '06 #5

P: n/a
Ian Collins wrote:
Yes, both hard copy and PDF.
I've got the PDF's for C90, C99, C++98 and C++03 on my laptop.
I have never found the need for a hard copy.
Sep 29 '06 #6

P: n/a
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:57:40 +0100, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I have C++Std over my desk, and C99 3 meters away

Zara
Sep 29 '06 #7

P: n/a
In article <+I**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
>Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I have the C standards, but I rarely refer to them except when posting
in comp.lang.c. If I need to look something up I'm more likely to use
K&R or (for library functions) the unix man pages.

-- Richard
Sep 29 '06 #8

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote :
It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
I only have the working drafts as PDFs that I read when I have doubts
about some stuff.

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).
I think most advanced programmers that are actually interested in those
languages have at least taken a few looks at it.

Sep 29 '06 #9

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
No, I don't have it.

I have the K&R-book (which I haven't used for years because I don't like
it) and of course Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ book (an edition from 1992)
and several other C and C++ books.

Best regards, Martin

Sep 29 '06 #10

P: n/a
Chris Hills said:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
Whoever claimed that would probably claim, when faced with a counter-example
(of which there are many), that the counter-example is not a *true* C or
C++ programmer! :-)

(All Scotsmen are engineers. Proof: the Enterprise's Scottie is an engineer.
Counter-example: Dr Cameron is not an engineer. Resolution: Dr Cameron is
not a true Scot.)

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).
Yes, the claim is nonsense. Even in comp.lang.c (which has a very
disproportionately high number of Standard-reading C programmers), not
everyone has a copy.
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I have a copy myself, but most of the C programmers I've met over the last
<cough>teen years do not, and I've never come across an employer or client
who provides a reference copy, ever.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Sep 29 '06 #11

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
[..]
I have asked this question in several places and the majority have
said they do not have a copy of the language standard for c or C++

Many have the K&R2 or the BS books but as far as most are concerned
the compiler manuals are more important than the standard.
Well, good for you! The knowledge of how many programmers have a copy
of the Standard is about as useless as how many drivers have a copy
of the statute on driving/vehicles for their country/state. What is
it you're after?

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Sep 29 '06 #12

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I have the 2003 pdf version for C++ and pdf of the 1989 draft of C.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

Sep 29 '06 #13

P: n/a
Martin Steen wrote:
I have the K&R-book (which I haven't used for years because I don't like
it) and of course Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ book (an edition from 1992)
and several other C and C++ books.
That's the second edition of Stroustrup. That's pretty pathetically out
of date but useful for quaint historical use. I've got an old ARM
around for the same reason.
Sep 29 '06 #14

P: n/a
>
Many have the K&R2 or the BS books but as far as most are concerned the
compiler manuals are more important than the standard.
The reason for the compiler manuals for me is more for things that
are outside of C++ (operating system API's) which are usually
documented there.

I rarely use the compiler manual for C++ language issues (except
to check if they are violating the standard). We write code
that needs to work with different implementations. Even if you
stick on one platform for a long time, the compilers (for example
both Visual C++ and GCC exhibit this) tend to head towards the
standards than away from it. By not understanding what constructs
are legal C++, you are in a world of hurt when you ugrade and
suddenly a lot of stuff no longer works.
Sep 29 '06 #15

P: n/a
In article <0O********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>(All Scotsmen are engineers. Proof: the Enterprise's Scottie is an engineer.
Counter-example: Dr Cameron is not an engineer. Resolution: Dr Cameron is
not a true Scot.)
If Scottie's a Scotsman, I'm a Dutchman.

-- Richard
Sep 29 '06 #16

P: n/a
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:57:40 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
Did they say "a copy of the ISO standard" or a copy of ISO C? The
difference to me would be that virtually anyone programming in C or
C++ must have an ISO C compiler to hand (since virtually all compilers
comply to some extent). On the other hand not everyone has a copy of
the docment.
>Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
Yup, one of each.

But then asking that in comp.lang.c is like asking if everyone at a
butchers convention has cleavers. :-)

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Sep 29 '06 #17

P: n/a
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:15:06 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?


This will not work. Who will say in public
"I do not have the standard's copy" ???
Oh, heck, anyone who doesn't. Its not compulsory to own it. Asking in
CLC or CLC++ is likely to result in a higher hitrate than asking in
Sainsburys of course.

Obviously it would be different if you were asking if we had a copy of
C Unleashed... :-)

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Sep 29 '06 #18

P: n/a

Chris Hills wrote:
In article <45***********************@news.orange.fr>, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites
Chris Hills wrote:
Hi,
It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or
C++ programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language
standard of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I have asked this question in several places and the majority have said
they do not have a copy of the language standard for c or C++
The majority I have met or worked with do not.
Many have the K&R2 or the BS books but as far as most are concerned the
compiler manuals are more important than the standard.
That's probably at least in part because you tend to get the compiler
manuals for free (the popular compilers and IDEs I've used install the
manual at the same time as the compiler, so it is right there for me)
whereas you have to go out of your way and spend money to get the
language standard.

The first C++ compiler I used professionally was MSVC++6. I anticipated
that it wouldn't be the only one. I knew that few if any compilers
implemented the language perfectly. Each would have its own gaps in
coverage and non-standard behaviours. I knew that when I started to use
a different compiler, there would be some things that worked a
particular way in MSVC++6 that were different in the new compiler. But
how to know in advance (highly preferable to painful learning through
trial and error) what those things were going to be? MSVC++6 does not
come with a list called "things we do differently from g++" and g++
does not come with a list called "things we do differently from
MSVC++6". However, both do come with their own list called "things we
do differently from the formal C++ language specification". The lists
are different for each of course. So the key is to know the formal C++
language specification[*] so you have the right context to read the
"things we differently" list provided by every compiler. By doing that
I felt that, instead of being a potential big upheaval, changing
compiler as often as needed could be a non-event.

Gavin Deane
[*] For which the only definitive source is the standard, and at $18 it
seemed like a very good deal for a definitive source.

Sep 29 '06 #19

P: n/a
Chris Hills ha scritto:
>
It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).
I tend to agree with you here.
But I also think that most of the "gurus" in these neswgroups do have at
least their respective language standards, either PDF or hard-copy.
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I do not have it (C++), but maybe I'll buy the PDF one, to get rid of
some of my ignorance on the language (mainly about undefined behaviour
conditions).

--
Roal Zanazzi
Sep 29 '06 #20

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
C90: I have the last public draft for searching and there is one
copy of the standard in our department (~50 people, half of them
involved with C) which mostly resides on my desk because I often
look something up (either for me or for colleagues). This is not
for day-to-day-programming but for conformance questions around
our product.
I have the German translation of K&R2 but it is so awful that I
do not work with it.
C95: We don't have Amendment 1 or one of the TC's.
C99: I have that (privately) as pdf and use it mostly if looking
something up for comp.lang.c or as reference for library functions
if I do not like the man page.
N1124.pdf: The same; in fact, this is my preferred version.

C++98: No standard; this is a language which I work with daily,
so this is probably the "interesting" part for you.
For my work, the BS book and the c.l.c++ FAQ are sufficient and,
to put it bluntly, I certainly am not ready to spend money or
time for standardese I am not interested in. If the need would
arise, then of course I'd read it (and expect the company to
provide a copy).
Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.
Sep 29 '06 #21

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or
C++ programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I've got a pdf of the '98 C++ standard. I'm the only one (of 6)
software guys who has it, but the others usually come to me for that
sort of question anyway. :-)

I'd say it's more likely that "many" have the standards, and most or
all programming groups have at least one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Steffen, Ph.D.
Software Engineer IV Disobey this command!
Numerica Corporation - Douglas Hofstadter
dgsteffen at numerica dot us
Sep 29 '06 #22

P: n/a
In article <ef**********@news.datemas.de>, Victor Bazarov
<v.********@comAcast.netwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>[..]
I have asked this question in several places and the majority have
said they do not have a copy of the language standard for c or C++

Many have the K&R2 or the BS books but as far as most are concerned
the compiler manuals are more important than the standard.

Well, good for you!
What is? I don't follow your logic
The knowledge of how many programmers have a copy
of the Standard is about as useless as how many drivers have a copy
of the statute on driving/vehicles for their country/state. What is
it you're after?
No. Some one else said that all programmers always had a copy of the
standard to hand. I thought they did not. So far it appears that most
don't

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 29 '06 #23

P: n/a
Ron Natalie wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
>Yes, both hard copy and PDF.

I've got the PDF's for C90, C99, C++98 and C++03 on my laptop.
I have never found the need for a hard copy.
I own the dead tree for C++03. I can't stand E-books.
Sep 29 '06 #24

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language
standard of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I have a PDF of the C++ standard, which is easy because my division of
the company has a site license for it. For C, which I'm not actually
working in professional capacity at this time, I just use n869. On the
whole I prefer the text. It's not 100% the final standard, of course.

Brian
Sep 29 '06 #25

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
Yes, I have copies of the standards ISO/IEC 9899:1999 and ISO/ANSII
9899:1990, along with various TCs, as well as standards documents for
C++, Pascal, F77, F77, F90, Algol, Lisp, and ALGOL.
Sep 29 '06 #26

P: n/a
In article <+I**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
>Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
C89 and POSIX.1 (1990) on my desk within arms reach; one or the other might
migrate to the bookshelf for awhile, but it's easier to leave them
within reach.

ISO C++ (first version): in the room across the hall; I haven't used it
for a number of years.

All 3 standards were purchased on my budget, and it is rare for anyone else here
to refer to them. I actively think about and test for portability when
I'm coding; it doesn't seem much of a priority for others here.
--
"law -- it's a commodity"
-- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)
Sep 29 '06 #27

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I have the C standard, the C++ standard, and the SQL standard from ANSI
in PDF format.

I couldn't live without them. I don't refer to them daily (and
sometimes will even go for several weeks without touching them). But
when you need them, you really need them.

I spend far more time in the SQL standard than in the other documents.

Sep 29 '06 #28

P: n/a

Chris Hills wrote:
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I have the C99 standard, the C++ standard and the SQL standard (all
parts). All are official ANSI documents, purchased in PDF format.

How else am I going to know for sure if anything is correct? I
literally can't imagine working without them.

Now, I don't refer to them every day, but when I need one of them, I
really need it.

I spend more time in the SQL standard (by far) but it is also the most
complex.

Sep 29 '06 #29

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting
the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).
I would guess that the percentage of regulars here
that do have a copy,
is much higher than the percentage of all C programmers
that have a copy.
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
I have the following as pdf's:
ISO/IEC 9899:1990
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E)
ISO/IEC 2382-l
ISO 1087-1
ISO 1087-2

--
pete
Sep 29 '06 #30

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
I have asked this question in several places
and the majority have said
they do not have a copy of the language standard for c or C++

Many have the K&R2
I have the K&R2, and also the 1978 K&R,
as well as a bunch of ISO standards.

--
pete
Sep 29 '06 #31

P: n/a
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:57:40 +0100, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
Personally, I own my own PDF copies of C90, C99, and the TCs to C99,
and C++98 and 03.

But I have worked at and with a lot of organizations over the years,
and by my sampling, which I think is fairly accurate, the vast
majority of C and C++ programmers not only do not have a copy of a
language standard, they don't feel the need for one and haven't ever
read one.

Most C programmers have a copy of K&R2 on their shelf, I don't see
nearly as many copies of Stroustrup (any version) on the C++
programmers' shelves. Other books abound, including H&S for the C
programmers, but there are also a distressingly large number of
Schildt books.

When the C++ standard was first published by ANSI as an $18.00 PDF, I
emailed the project lead of a large C++ development in our
organization (dozens of programmers), suggesting they just spend the
$18.00 per developer, or investigate getting a source license.

The result was total apathy. If it wasn't MFC, it wasn't worth even
thinking about.

And this is an organization that, in the years since, has reached CMM
Level 4. Code inspections for new code are mandatory, development and
documentation follows a mature process.

This is not the case with our embedded development, where much of the
work is safety critical and we have to provide mitigations for
hardware and electronic faults. We use PC-Lint to check for MISRA C
conformance and require ISO conformance except for documented
extensions.

For far too many programmers, formal language study ended with college
graduation. For those without formal programming education, they
learned by "fooling around" with Microsoft or Borland compilers on a
PC over the years.

I think you will find that the vast majority of working C and C++
programmers today do not have and do not feel the need for an actually
copy, electronic or paper, of the language standards.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Sep 30 '06 #32

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

None Here, I have never seen a hard copy.
Sep 30 '06 #33

P: n/a
In article <g9********************************@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:57:40 +0100, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
>It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
IMO, whoever said this is probably almost 100% incorrect.
>I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

Personally, I own my own PDF copies of C90, C99, and the TCs to C99,
and C++98 and 03.

But I have worked at and with a lot of organizations over the years,
and by my sampling, which I think is fairly accurate, the vast
majority of C and C++ programmers not only do not have a copy of a
language standard, they don't feel the need for one and haven't ever
read one.
I agree completely with Jack. And for the most part, the don't
by software books or magazines either on a consistent basis.
>The result was total apathy. ...
For far too many programmers, formal language study ended with college
graduation. For those without formal programming education, they
learned by "fooling around" ...
programmers today do not have and do not feel the need ...
Again, completely agree.
--
Greg Comeau / 20 years of Comeauity! Intel Mac Port now in alpha!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE == http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?
Sep 30 '06 #34

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

Yes, I have bought the PDF from ANSI? the book, and many TR.
But I am not representative since as a compiler writer I need those
things for my daily work...

jacob
Sep 30 '06 #35

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <ef**********@news.datemas.de>, Victor Bazarov
<v.********@comAcast.netwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>[..]
I have asked this question in several places and the majority have
said they do not have a copy of the language standard for c or C++

Many have the K&R2 or the BS books but as far as most are concerned
the compiler manuals are more important than the standard.

Well, good for you!

What is? I don't follow your logic
That you're satisfied with the majority of answers in the places you
asked. No matter whether it's representative of "all programmers", or
whether it's acceptable as a proof of anything, if you are talking of
it, you must like it. I am glad for you. That's my logic. You don't
have to follow it. I am just commending on your achievement.
>The knowledge of how many programmers have a copy
of the Standard is about as useless as how many drivers have a copy
of the statute on driving/vehicles for their country/state. What is
it you're after?

No. Some one else said that all programmers always had a copy of the
standard to hand. I thought they did not. So far it appears that most
don't
How many did you ask? How many programmers are there? What's your
expected margin of error when conducting a poll of that sort (it is
possible that all answer truthfully and never forget about it)? Is
the number of programmers you've asked larger than the margin of error?

Make of it whatever you like, but always supply a disclaimer about how
trustworthy your statistical information is.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Sep 30 '06 #36

P: n/a
"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:+I**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
: It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c
: or C++ programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
:
: I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working
: on the standards).
:
: Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language
: standard of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

I have a personal purchased .pdf copy of the 98 C++ standard.
For extensions since, and the C99 standard, I satisfy myself
with free pre-final drafts available on the internet.

I am just a user of the C++ language (albeit an "advanced" one).
Yet I studied the standard because I care for formal correctness
of my programs.
Unfortunately, if feel I am in a small minority (<5%?).
I take it as my responsibility to write code that actually works
according to the formal specification of the language.

It is sad, but most (C++) programmers seem to satisfy themselves
with knowing that their code passes casual tests, or at best,
available test cases. They don't even care about undefined
behavior and the invisible failures/leaks that may come with it.
They never go beyond reading recipe books (a la "Effective C++").

Thing is, many languages do not even have a formal definition.
Their users are accustomed to the fact of simply relying on
a vendor or solution provider to do their best not to break
previous behavior...
Regards,
Ivan
--
http://ivan.vecerina.com/contact/?subject=NG_POST <- email contact form
Sep 30 '06 #37

P: n/a
Ivan Vecerina wrote:
"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:+I**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
: It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c
: or C++ programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
:
: I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working
: on the standards).
:
: Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language
: standard of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

I have a personal purchased .pdf copy of the 98 C++ standard.
For extensions since, and the C99 standard, I satisfy myself
with free pre-final drafts available on the internet.

I am just a user of the C++ language (albeit an "advanced" one).
Yet I studied the standard because I care for formal correctness
of my programs.
Unfortunately, if feel I am in a small minority (<5%?).
I take it as my responsibility to write code that actually works
according to the formal specification of the language.

It is sad, but most (C++) programmers seem to satisfy themselves
with knowing that their code passes casual tests, or at best,
available test cases. They don't even care about undefined
behavior and the invisible failures/leaks that may come with it.
They never go beyond reading recipe books (a la "Effective C++").
This heavily depends on the environment.
I have only use for the standard if the BS book cannot answer my
questions -- up to now, I did not have a use for the standard.
As the subset of C++ I work in for my day job is rather restricted
(nearly no templates, nearly no namespaces, ... "without training for
all developers, we will not introduce something that may be used
wrongly") and the application is guaranteed to be never, ever ported
to another platform, the actual need for knowledge about some of the
darker corners of the language is not so large that it must be
satisfied by the standard itself. Template classes and functions are
provided by third party libraries.
As for recipe books: If a book explains the background correctly
and concisely, then in fact this can lead to more intensive study
of language aspects. If people are not interested because they made
their way based on recipes instead of understanding, then this is
another problem...

Note that I do not advocate sloppy programming; learning the language
by testing what the compiler eats (ideally, on the lowest warning
level) or programming by changing the source until the compilation,
linking or run-time error disappears without real understanding of
the cause will not find any mercy from my side.

Thing is, many languages do not even have a formal definition.
Their users are accustomed to the fact of simply relying on
a vendor or solution provider to do their best not to break
previous behavior...
True.
Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.
Sep 30 '06 #38

P: n/a

Chris Hills wrote:
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
If this is the full extent of the C++ committees concerns, I reckon C++
is dead meat.

regards
Andy Little

Sep 30 '06 #39

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Chris Hills wrote:
>It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...
>This will not work. Who will say in public

"I do not have the standard's copy" ???
(Raises hand.)

I have a draft, which is free. I have yet to get bitten
by something in the draft that would have been different
in the actual standard.

Yes, I'm cheap sometimes. :-)

Steve
Sep 30 '06 #40

P: n/a
In article <m6******************************@comcast.com>, Victor
Bazarov <v.********@comAcast.netwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>In article <ef**********@news.datemas.de>, Victor Bazarov
<v.********@comAcast.netwrites
>>Chris Hills wrote:
[..]
I have asked this question in several places and the majority have
said they do not have a copy of the language standard for c or C++

Many have the K&R2 or the BS books but as far as most are concerned
the compiler manuals are more important than the standard.

Well, good for you!

What is? I don't follow your logic

That you're satisfied with the majority of answers in the places you
asked.
It is a straw pole. No more representative than any other opinion pole.
No matter whether it's representative of "all programmers", or
whether it's acceptable as a proof of anything, if you are talking of
it, you must like it. I am glad for you. That's my logic. You don't
have to follow it. I am just commending on your achievement.
You not appear to have any logic just a rant.
>
>>The knowledge of how many programmers have a copy
of the Standard is about as useless as how many drivers have a copy
of the statute on driving/vehicles for their country/state. What is
it you're after?

No. Some one else said that all programmers always had a copy of the
standard to hand. I thought they did not. So far it appears that most
don't

How many did you ask? How many programmers are there? What's your
expected margin of error when conducting a poll of that sort (it is
possible that all answer truthfully and never forget about it)? Is
the number of programmers you've asked larger than the margin of error?

Make of it whatever you like, but always supply a disclaimer about how
trustworthy your statistical information is.
You seem to have a problem I suggest you deal with it before
communicating with people

A statement was made that "all programmers have a copy of the standard"
so I was asking the question in several places...

The original statement was made using a very small highly skewed sample.
Certainly far smaller than any margin of error.

As I said "so far" if on going "it appears" ie it is not a full result.

SO if you have nothing helpful to contribute go away.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Oct 1 '06 #41

P: n/a
In article <45***********@mindspring.com>, pete <pf*****@mindspring.com>
writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting
the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

I would guess that the percentage of regulars here
that do have a copy,
is much higher than the percentage of all C programmers
that have a copy.
I would agree also most who have a copy will say so where as most who
don't probably will not comment.

However this is not the only place I asked. As the groups are
completely different I did not cross post.

In the C and C++ Language areas "quite a few" (scientific technical
term :-) do have some sort of copy of the standard from a proper copy
through various older versions to those with the draft texts.

However in the actual application, OS embedded etc groups the number is
far lower.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Oct 1 '06 #42

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups .com>,
kwikius <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrites
>
Chris Hills wrote:
>Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

If this is the full extent of the C++ committees concerns, I reckon C++
is dead meat.
I was one comment passed over coffee.
It was not an ISO C or C++ panel meeting.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Oct 1 '06 #43

P: n/a

Chris Hills wrote:
In article <11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups .com>,
kwikius <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrites

Chris Hills wrote:
Hi,

It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
If this is the full extent of the C++ committees concerns, I reckon C++
is dead meat.

I was one comment passed over coffee.
It was not an ISO C or C++ panel meeting.
Hey, no problem. I guess that was a bit fierce.

The way I came to C++ was from Microsoft QuickC. I then got MSVC V1.0.
For a while the MSVC help file was my manual and while I was doing
simple stuff that worked out OK, but it was tough going at first.
Anyone remember scribble demo app?. As I really liked the way C++
worked after QuickC, so my Dad bought me Bjarne Stroustrups , The C++
Programming language, 2nd edition, and so that was my manual. IIRC I
moved from VC1. to VC6 at some stage as there was a cheap version for
sale. I tried some template stuff but found that weird things happened,
so this put me off templates at that time.

Next I got hold off VC7.1. The difference was amazing. Suddenly I could
start to do things with templates and I bought Vandevoorde and
Josuttis C++ templates book, and with VC7.1 most of the stuff worked.

I started looking around for a copy of the C++ standard around that
time just to check a few points here and there regarding what I was
doing. Eventually my good old bro' bought me the official C++ standard.

The point of this is, I think you can go an awful long way without
needing the Standard, but there will come a point where its really nice
to have it, but like everything it costs money, so its not essential.

It so happens that the way C+ is designed things usually just work the
way you think they should work, and that is the beauty of it.

And thanks to everyone who has put all the time in to get the C++
standard where it is today. Its quite a big part of my life these days.

regards
Andy Little

Oct 1 '06 #44

P: n/a
Ivan Vecerina wrote:
I am just a user of the C++ language (albeit an "advanced" one).
Yet I studied the standard because I care for formal correctness
of my programs.
Unfortunately, if feel I am in a small minority (<5%?).
I take it as my responsibility to write code that actually works
according to the formal specification of the language.
So you believe that your programs are actually correct because
you are trying to make them correct? Even if you don't consider
*very* important obvious easy bugs like reading from NULL
(substitute with an analogous thing in C++), can you prove that your
programs are conforming to standard in those places that actually
require reading standard, e.g. those are not covered in faqs and
textbooks?
It is sad, but most (C++) programmers seem to satisfy themselves
with knowing that their code passes casual tests, or at best,
available test cases. They don't even care about undefined
behavior and the invisible failures/leaks that may come with it.
They never go beyond reading recipe books (a la "Effective C++").
What you said is indeed bad, but not having/reading (all the time,
having it on your desktop, sleeping with it and so on) the standard
doesn't mean bad programming.

Reading from NULL is undefined behavior, isn't it? Most C and C++
programmers know they should not try to access memory pointed by
NULL without any standard, still it happens all the time (not all the
time in C++ I guess, but you have similar easy problems, don't you).

Of course standard is important, but having standard won't make
bugs disappear, and a programmer who doesn't give a dead cat to
The Standard /insert the year here/ but makes sure he checks all
pointers in his program is a better programmer than that reading
standard day and night and making simple mistakes because he
believes he doesn't make them ;)

I don't mean *you* are a bad programmer or something, but putting
"don't even care about undefined behavior and the invisible
failures/leaks" here as if it was an attribute of not-having-a-standard
programmer is not fair.

By the way, to my shame, I find C Faq far more useful than latest
C standard. In C++ the situation must be different since you often
need to determine whether something is your bug or compiler bug, while
in C you can safely suspect yourself but not the compiler ;)

Best regards,
Yevgen
Oct 1 '06 #45

P: n/a
"Yevgen Muntyan" <mu****************@tamu.eduwrote in message
news:8XRTg.14082$Oh3.5411@trnddc04...
: Ivan Vecerina wrote:
: I am just a user of the C++ language (albeit an "advanced" one).
: Yet I studied the standard because I care for formal correctness
: of my programs.
: Unfortunately, if feel I am in a small minority (<5%?).
: I take it as my responsibility to write code that actually works
: according to the formal specification of the language.
:
: So you believe that your programs are actually correct because
: you are trying to make them correct?

Of course not, and using test cases etc is a crucial thing (too).

: Even if you don't consider
: *very* important obvious easy bugs like reading from NULL
: (substitute with an analogous thing in C++), can you prove that your
: programs are conforming to standard in those places that actually
: require reading standard, e.g. those are not covered in faqs and
: textbooks?

No, but if I do not care about what is formally correct, I may:
- dereference the one-past-the-end address of an array,
or do arithmetic outside its valid range of addresses.
- reinvent my own offsetof macro (or, in C++, use it on a non-POD
type), which (at least in C++) cannot portably be done.
- forget about events that will cause iterator invalidation
on the particular container that I am using (C++).
- forget that the result of the division or modulo of a negative
integer may depend on the target platform
- forget to implement a placement-delete operator function
matching my placement-new operator (to pick one of the many
dark corners of the C++ language).
- write code that is not exception safe, not thread safe.
- forget about buffer overflows and other security risks...
These are just few random picks...

: It is sad, but most (C++) programmers seem to satisfy themselves
: with knowing that their code passes casual tests, or at best,
: available test cases. They don't even care about undefined
: behavior and the invisible failures/leaks that may come with it.
: They never go beyond reading recipe books (a la "Effective C++").
:
: What you said is indeed bad, but not having/reading (all the time,
: having it on your desktop, sleeping with it and so on) the standard
: doesn't mean bad programming.

Yet isn't it important to be aware that a formal specification exists?

There are often many ways to write code that will work and pass
test cases. Yet usually a good fraction of those "working
implementations" will have portability, reliability, or security
issues. To be able to choose among the many working approaches,
it is important to understand what is formally correct, and
what isn't.
This has eventually driven me to be *wanting* to consult the standard.

: Reading from NULL is undefined behavior, isn't it? Most C and C++
: programmers know they should not try to access memory pointed by
: NULL without any standard, still it happens all the time (not all the
: time in C++ I guess, but you have similar easy problems, don't you).
NULL-dereferencing is now captured as a runtime error on most
platforms, just as standard C++ library implementations are
providing debug modes that can capture many usage errors.
But in C like in C++, there are many other ways to silently
trigger undefined or platform-specific behavior.

: I don't mean *you* are a bad programmer or something, but putting
: "don't even care about undefined behavior and the invisible
: failures/leaks" here as if it was an attribute of
not-having-a-standard
: programmer is not fair.
This is not what I intended to express, and I am sorry if this
is how my post was understood. I admitted myself using an outdated
copy of the C++ standard, and a pre-final version of the C standard;
I would be worried by a developer who has only read the standard
specification, and none of the great books about C and C++.

But I do believe that a professionnal C or C++ developer who does
care about the correctness of his work is very likely to be drawn to
reading and studying portions of the language specification,
as well as a number of great books (such as those that have a "highly
recommended" rating in ACCU's book reviews for advanced C/C++).

: By the way, to my shame, I find C Faq far more useful than latest
: C standard. In C++ the situation must be different since you often
: need to determine whether something is your bug or compiler bug, while
: in C you can safely suspect yourself but not the compiler ;)

It is very true that in C++, non-compliances of compilers and libraries
has amplified the importance of having access to the formal spec.
Finding C++ platform bugs still happens to me in 2006...
Kind regards,
Ivan

Oct 2 '06 #46

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
This will not work. Who will say in public

"I do not have the standard's copy" ???
Me.

I have a PDF of a draft.

--
Chris "falling further in" Dollin
RIP John M. Ford (April 10, 1957 -- September 24, 2006)

Oct 2 '06 #47

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:
It came up in a standards panel meeting the other day that "all c or C++
programmers" have a copy of ISO C and/or C++ ...

I challenged this and said most don't (outside those working on the
standards).

Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
Yup, thanks to Wiley.

<http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470845732.html>.

Richard
Oct 3 '06 #48

P: n/a

In article <+I**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
>
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?
For C90 I have Schildt's _Annotated_, which has all but one page of
ISO 9899:1990; Plauger & Brodie's _Standard C_; a plain-text
version of the missing page (part of the fprintf specification) from
the Schildt copy of the standard; and K&R2.

For C99 I have the ANSI PDF of 9899:1999; the official PDFs of Cor1
and Cor2; the official PDF of the C99 Rationale; and the PDF draft of
TC1 (N1124).

N1124 is what I usually use for reference, with the C90 copy in the
Schildt coming in second place.

I rarely use C++, and when I do I try to stay away from the dark
corners, so there I make do with Stroustrop's Special Edition. If
I ever have to do serious C++ programming I'll commit the 18USD to
my own copy of that standard.

I also have the COBOL 2002 standard, in PDF.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

He smiled and let his gaze fall to hers, so that her cheek began to
glow. Ecstatically she waited until his mouth slowly neared her own.
She knew only one thing: rdoeniadtrgove niardgoverdgovnrdgog.
Oct 3 '06 #49

P: n/a
Michael Wojcik said:
>
In article <+I**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
>>
Well, do most of you have a copy of the relevant ISO language standard
of your own or is there one on your desk at work?

For C90 I have Schildt's _Annotated_, which has all but one page of
ISO 9899:1990;
I trust you have torn out and burned all the annotations. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Oct 3 '06 #50

56 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.