468,490 Members | 2,551 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,490 developers. It's quick & easy.

Making C better (by borrowing from C++)

I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

Masood
Dec 23 '07
204 4115

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
He's talking nonsense. Of course VC's editor can search upwards. What's
more, it takes just a single keypress to jump to a declaration (and
another to pop back to where you came from), so he doesn't even /need/ >
the reverse search that VC does in fact have.
So does emacs. But I'm not clever enough to know how to use it. So I grep
instead and check the line numbers.

A function you don't know how to use is no different to no function at all.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
Dec 27 '07 #151
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:
Masood wrote:
...
>I didn't mean to offend anyone with the word "Taleban" - I apologize
if you took offense.

I can't imagine how you intended it to be taken as anything other than
offensive; being offensive strikes me as the whole point of such an
reference.

Please note that "I apologize if you took offense" isn't really a true
apology. It implies that the real blame is on Keith (and, by
implication, myself and others) for being offended, and that you still
don't understand that it was in fact offensive.

I would prefer to hear from you something along the line of "I
apologize for inadvertently writing something offensive.
>I thought it was just a good description - I think it will be clear
to most people that the features a "C Taleban" shares with an
"Afghanistan Taleban" are fundamentalism and extremely-held beliefs,
rather than any violence and suchlike.

Then choose for your comparison some group other than the Taliban. The
Taliban's claim to fame is not their fundamentalism, which is
unfortunately common throughout the world. They're famous for the
violence and oppression with which they impose their understanding of
God's will on others.
So like Americans then?

"Taleban" is no more offensive than being called a Yank IMO.
>
The people you've designated at "the C Taleban" don't have any power
whatsoever to impose their understanding of the ISO committee's will
on anybody; I'm not saying that I know for certain that none of them
would abuse such power if they had it; but they don't have it, so it's
a moot point.
Yet they insist on trying.
Dec 27 '07 #152
On Dec 23, 10:29 am, Masood <masood.iq...@nospam.comwrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

Masood
Why not use a C++ compiler and voluntarily restrict yourself to the
features you want? I'm assuming you are using a system where a C++
compiler is available (not always the case of course). Yes, you get a
slightly different base language in the largely common C/C++
intersection (size of char constants, differing const semantics,
additional reserved words, etc), but once you allow for that you are
set. I wonder if anyone has compiler options that restrict which C++
features you can use, or if such is even feasible. e.g. you could set
options such as "no multiple inheritance" or "no templates" or "no
overloading" or whatever policies suit you, and have the compiler
enforce your choices. It could even be smart and not enforce them
inside system headers, if that is too painful. Just a thought. If
you like this option, discussing it in comp.lang.c++ (or a compiler
group) is the way to go...

BTW, without the OO stuff, new/delete seems useless to me. Main
feature of normal new/delete beyond allocating the memory is the use
of constructors/destructors, but you said no objects? Declaring
variables just before use is C99 feature (and fairly common extension
prior to that). Not sure what you want for const. References are OK,
but, well, so are pointers which is what references are under the
hood... I'm not sure that what you are asking for is really worth
much. I like both C and C++, and don't feel a reason for C to become
more like C++. If I want to use C++ features, well, I know where to
find them.

-David
Dec 27 '07 #153
Masood wrote:
I didn't mean to offend anyone with the word "Taleban" - I apologize if
you took offense.
Well, OK, but back to your original question: If you lile to use certain
constructs that C++ offers in your programs, why don't you just code in C++
from the beginning?

robert
Dec 27 '07 #154
<ja*********@verizon.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5a**********************************@l6g2000p rm.googlegroups.com...
>

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>"James Kuyper" <ja*********@verizon.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:mlNcj.35227$gF4.27411@trnddc02...
...
Then choose for your comparison some group other than the Taliban. The
Taliban's claim to fame is not their fundamentalism, which is
unfortunately common throughout the world. They're famous for the
violence
and oppression with which they impose their understanding of God's will
on
others.

The people you've designated at "the C Taleban" don't have any power
whatsoever to impose their understanding of the ISO committee's will on
anybody; I'm not saying that I know for certain that none of them would
abuse such power if they had it; but they don't have it, so it's a moot
point.

"Taliban" merely means "students". Does that still offend you?

I'm well aware of the etymology of the name. If that were the only
meaning of the word, and then his use of that word would not have
offended me. It would have confused me, because that meaning doesn't
match the context in which he used the word. In context, it was quite
clear that he was using "Taleban" as a reference to the organization
which adopted that word as it's name.
That group would be islamic fundamentalist, so a C Taliban would be a C
fundamentalist, still no offence IMHO, but a pretty good description...

Not every Taliban is a suizide bomber and not every suizide bomber is a
taliban and those who are, haven't read their koran properly in the first
place, hence ain't proper "students"

Bye, Jojo
Dec 27 '07 #155
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
....
Not every Taliban is a suizide bomber
I wish they were; that would finish off the movement pretty quickly.
... and not every suizide bomber is a
taliban
Of course not; most of them are affiliated with other groups.
... and those who are, haven't read their koran properly in the first
place, hence ain't proper "students"
There appear to be many people with a lot of power who read the Koran
as permitting the use of violence against individual civilians who's
only crime was to not share the same beliefs. There appear to be some
people who read the Koran as prohibiting such things,. but I'm not
sure how many they are; they don't seem to be sufficiently numerous or
powerful to keep the first group in check. As an atheist, I don't take
the Koran as authoritative. However, from my reading of that book, for
those who do consider it to be authoritative, it seems to me that the
first group has better arguments than the second one.
Dec 27 '07 #156
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 27/12/07 15:28:
>
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
>He's talking nonsense. Of course VC's editor can search upwards. What's
more, it takes just a single keypress to jump to a declaration (and
another to pop back to where you came from), so he doesn't even /need/
the reverse search that VC does in fact have.
So does emacs. But I'm not clever enough to know how to use it.
So don't.
So I
grep instead and check the line numbers.

A function you don't know how to use is no different to no function at all.
If you believe that you should not be in an educational establishment.
Not as student *or* teacher.
--
Flash Gordon
Dec 27 '07 #157
Paul Hsieh wrote:
jameskuy...@verizon.net wrote:
.... snip ...
>
>Nor it it very different from searching for previous definitions
of the identifier by name, which I've found to be a much quicker
and more reliable method.

Really? Personally, I cannot even make that work. VC++'s editor
does not have a backward search, nor does it have Perl compatible
RE search, nor does it have simple semantics for ping-pong
buffering between two different searches. But in C89, its hardly
needed as an eyeball scan is quick and usually sufficient.
Most allegedly intelligent programmers begin by selecting a
suitable editor, and then use a command line driven compiler
together with a make file. This manages to insulate the
programming environment from the weird ideas of such people as the
Microsoft organization. Please note that even the fouled up
Microsoft mechanisms include a command line driven compiler.

It is extremely easy to find editors implementing backward search.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 27 '07 #158
On Dec 27, 12:50*pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.comwrote:
Paul Hsieh wrote:
jameskuy...@verizon.net wrote:

... snip ...
Nor it it very different from searching for previous definitions
of the identifier by name, which I've found to be a much quicker
and more reliable method.
Really? *Personally, I cannot even make that work. *VC++'s editor
does not have a backward search,
ctrl-f, check "search up"
nor does it have Perl compatible
RE search,
ctrl-f, check "use regular expressions"
>nor does it have simple semantics for ping-pong
buffering between two different searches.
Output to window 1, output to window 2
*But in C89, its hardly
needed as an eyeball scan is quick and usually sufficient.

Most allegedly intelligent programmers begin by selecting a
suitable editor,
I am fond of UltraEdit32. Most amazing of all, it will edit files
from my PC on OpenVMS, Solaris, Linux, etc. and automatically update
the local version. I love it.
and then use a command line driven compiler
together with a make file. *This manages to insulate the
programming environment from the weird ideas of such people as the
Microsoft organization. *Please note that even the fouled up
Microsoft mechanisms include a command line driven compiler.
I have to admit that I also like IDEs. I tend to use Eclipse on Linux
and the like and Visual Studio on Windows.
It is extremely easy to find editors implementing backward search.
Perhaps backward search is a new feature, but I seem to remember using
it for as long as I can recall.
Dec 28 '07 #159
In article <47***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites
... snip ...
>>
>>and a rather self-defeating point. He's saying that a compiler
vendor doesn't know C well enough to be considered a "guru" -
but surely a compiler vendor ought to know C better than
*anyone*!

Maybe... Compiler vendors produce things they can sell.... or
rather things people want. GCC is hardly "ISO-C" and most
embedded compilers are non-standard.

Nonsense. "gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" is a quite accurate ISO-C
compiler for C90, and replacing -ansi with -std=C99 makes for a
fairly accurate C99 compiler.
Not it's not but I can't be bothered to argue.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Dec 28 '07 #160
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
>
>BTW What is "the book" called?

Out of print.

Seriously, those who really want to know will have no difficulty in
finding
out.
Don't go for a job in sales and marketing.

The book is called C Unleashed. Though the publisher has sold all his stock
that does not mean that copies are unobtainable. Amazon currently has two
copies for sale.
Why not buy one, and a copy of Basic Algorithms by me (available from the
link on my website) , and post a thread comparing the two offerings?

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Dec 28 '07 #161
In article <47***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>jacob navia wrote:
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:

Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".

Since when?

Since Microsoft got that technical report with its safe library,
all standard functions like fopen printf, etc provoke a warning.

You seem incapable of telling MS FUD from fact. The C library is
NOT deprecated. Try reading the C standard.
Why read the C standard when one has the Authoritative "safe[r]" or
"secure" Microsoft Library?

"A Library which has been accepted by ISO as a TR and TR's invariably
become part of the standard" It is the like from being accepted as a TR
to TR's being part of the next revision of the standard that is the
problem. IT is true that many do but it is not automatic.

This is the argument took place well over a year ago. I voted against
the MS library for the obvious reason of MS FUD above. MS has
"depreciated" the standard library for it's own "safe(r)" library. ISO
hasn't.

The problem is that now the MS library is "official" they have started
to use official words like "depreciate" for anything else. This just
shows that a company in MS's position can subvert the standards process.

Hence the Joke "how many MS programmers does it take to change a light
bulb?"

Answer "none" (They just declare darkness a new standard.)

How true.

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

Dec 28 '07 #162
In article <87************@blp.benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff
<bl*@cs.stanford.eduwrites
>CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Chris Hills wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".

Since when?

Since Microsoft got that technical report with its safe library,
all standard functions like fopen printf, etc provoke a warning.

You seem incapable of telling MS FUD from fact. The C library is
NOT deprecated. Try reading the C standard.

It's a matter of point of view. Microsoft can consider the C
library, or portions of it, deprecated if they want to, and it
seems that they do. The question is really whether the C
standards committee considers it deprecated. The answer is, I
presume, "no".
We agree

It is smoke and mirrors by MS however as the vast majority of their
users only use MS tools they don't really care what ISO or anyone else
does as they are in a purely MS world.

On the other hand. The other major user of C is the embedded world who
don't care at all what MS do and tend to use C95 with the last major
group being the GCC crowd who work to GCC their standards anyway.

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

Dec 28 '07 #163
In article <47***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>jacob navia wrote:
>Malcolm McLean wrote:
... snip ...
>>
>>gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,

No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.

Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.
Quite a restrictive license...
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Dec 28 '07 #164
In article
<36**********************************@w38g2000hsf. googlegroups.com>,
ja*********@verizon.net writes
>

Richard wrote:
>James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:
However, I would not agree that "Yank" is as much of an insult as
"Talib" (the singular form of "Taliban").
In many many parts of the world "yank" is a worse insult.
In fact in some parts of the world Yank has been changed to "septic" as
in septic-tank == yank.

All I can do is wish you good luck in November. But this is all way off
topic.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Dec 28 '07 #165
Malcolm McLean said:
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
>>BTW What is "the book" called?
Out of print.
Seriously, those who really want to know will have no difficulty in
finding out.
Don't go for a job in sales and marketing.
I wasn't planning on it. But if I did, I still would not use comp.lang.c as
a sales channel. That isn't what it's for.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 28 '07 #166
In article <fl**********@aioe.org>,
David Laudedale, right-wing, conservative tool, <no*****@nospam.invalidwrote:
....
>This garbage is absolutely typical of the left-liberal elite in the US!
You should be ashamed to call yourself a US citizen. Our country and our
President deserve our support and loyalty at times of war. George W.
Bush is a man of great personal integrity who has only ever acted from
the best and purest motives, to defend our country from the ever-growing
terrorist threat.
Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

--
Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

And one not CLC-related (just for this once - because this poster really
needs it):

http://www.stephaniemiller.com

Dec 28 '07 #167
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:46:35 +0000, David Laudedale
<no*****@nospam.invalidwrote:

<a load of us imperialist rubbish>

This is a troll, right? Noone seriously believes the stuff you wrote,
surely?

Tony
Dec 28 '07 #168
In article <40********************************@4ax.com>, Tony Mc
<af***@btinternet.comwrites
>On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:46:35 +0000, David Laudedale
<no*****@nospam.invalidwrote:

<a load of us imperialist rubbish>

This is a troll, right? Noone seriously believes the stuff you wrote,
surely?

Tony
Sadly some do.

There are a lot who seem to think that GWB is an intelligent man who
knows what he is doing and he is doing the right thing... it's just the
rest of the world that is wrong.

You should see some of the similar types on the terrorism NG..... they
think Fox news is middle of the road!
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Dec 28 '07 #169
[SNIP]

Oh, good. The one thing this newsgroup really needed was a flame war
about US politics.

Take it someplace else, *please*. If that means letting someone whose
opinion you despise have the last word, so be it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
[...]
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 28 '07 #170
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
[...]
The problem is that now the MS library is "official" they have started
to use official words like "depreciate" for anything else. This just
shows that a company in MS's position can subvert the standards
process.
[...]

I believe the word is "deprecate", not "depreciate".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
[...]
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 28 '07 #171
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:32:33 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:
In article <47***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>>Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What you
can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment without
licensing that development under GPL.

Quite a restrictive license...
No, not even close. It _literally_ doesn't restrict you at all. The GPL
is explicit on that: you don't have to accept it. If you don't, standard
copyright laws apply. (And if your country's copyright laws say you're
allowed to include GPL-licensed code into a non-GPL derivative without
the author's permission, go right ahead, but I doubt they do.) If you do
accept it, you get additional permissions beyond the standard ones.

Which compiler do you have in mind that allows more? I'm aware of a few,
but not any in a state where I would recommend it yet. If you know of
some other, please do share; I would be happy to switch.
Dec 28 '07 #172
David Laudedale wrote:
On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.


Brian
Dec 28 '07 #173
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
David Laudedale wrote:
>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:

Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.
Brian
You seem very keen on telling people who owes apologies to who. And
thanks for waking up that thread.
Dec 28 '07 #174
In article <87************@kvetch.smov.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites
>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
[...]
>The problem is that now the MS library is "official" they have started
to use official words like "depreciate" for anything else. This just
shows that a company in MS's position can subvert the standards
process.
[...]

I believe the word is "deprecate", not "depreciate".
Yes.. As usually my spalling is the problem...
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Dec 28 '07 #175
Default User wrote:
David Laudedale wrote:
On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:

Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.
Every step along the way, the "Taleban" aspect of this thread has been
off-topic.
I'm sorry Masood felt a need to bring the Taleban into this. I'm sorry
that Richard felt the need to claim that "Taleban" is no worse than
"Yank". I do feel that it was appropriate for me to respond to that
claim, but I couldn't figure out a way to respond accurately without
explaining a lot of seriously off-topic issues; I wish I could have.
When David Lauderdale responded, I would have preferred to answer him
by e-mail, but he hides behind an invalid e-mail address, so I
responded to the group.

I'd be more than happy to obey a moratorium on all politically charged
discussions; but the starting point of that in this case would have
been to use some metaphor with fewer violent connotations than
"Taleban" to describe C fundamentalists.
Dec 28 '07 #176
On Dec 28, 10:07*am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgwrote:
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.orgwrites:

[...]The problem is that now the MS library is "official" they have started
to use official words like "depreciate" for anything else. This just
shows that a company in MS's position can subvert the standards
process.

[...]

I believe the word is "deprecate", not "depreciate".
Maybe it should be "defecate". Seems odd that they could not just
make fopen() work safely in the first place.
Dec 28 '07 #177
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:28:19 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
Harald van Dijk wrote:
>I asked which compiler you were comparing it to. I'll ask now again: is
there a compiler that you recommend that allows you to do anything you
wouldn't be allowed with gcc?

Yes.
But I will not start a commercial advertisement here...

:-)
Oh, if your compiler does have a license granting permissions beyond
gcc's, this is one of the times where drawing attention to it here is
probably appropriate. I'm not sure it does, but I'd be happy to be shown
wrong.
Dec 28 '07 #178
In article <70**********************************@n20g2000hsh. googlegroups.com>,
<ja*********@verizon.netwrote:
....
>I'd be more than happy to obey a moratorium on all politically charged
discussions; but the starting point of that in this case would have
been to use some metaphor with fewer violent connotations than
"Taleban" to describe C fundamentalists.
Or you guys could all just lighten up. I mean, think of the term "nazi".
Surely, in historical perspective, this is every bit as evil (many would
say, much more so) as the Taliban. Nevertheless, Godwin aside, we do
use the word "nazi" in everyday speech to refer to a certain sort of
authoritarian personality type, without people bringing up the death
camps and so on. Example: Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi".

Dec 28 '07 #179
Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:28:19 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>Harald van Dijk wrote:
>>I asked which compiler you were comparing it to. I'll ask now again: is
there a compiler that you recommend that allows you to do anything you
wouldn't be allowed with gcc?
Yes.
But I will not start a commercial advertisement here...

:-)

Oh, if your compiler does have a license granting permissions beyond
gcc's, this is one of the times where drawing attention to it here is
probably appropriate. I'm not sure it does, but I'd be happy to be shown
wrong.
You can't embed gcc's source code in your application to generate
dynamically C code and execute it on the fly.

You can't embed gcc into your application to compile dynamically
c code into a dll/shared object

You can't use gcc as a back end for your proprietary language,
mainly because it is too slow, but also too complex to adapt
and modify.

In general the source code of gcc is 10 times bigger than
the source of gcc. It doesn't help you that the source is
freely available since it is impossible to understand
because of its sheer complexity. Lcc-win code is 80% of the
speed of gcc, with only 10% of the source code, mainly because
lcc doesn't support C++.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 28 '07 #180
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:08:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
Harald van Dijk wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:28:19 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>>Harald van Dijk wrote:
I asked which compiler you were comparing it to. I'll ask now again:
is there a compiler that you recommend that allows you to do anything
you wouldn't be allowed with gcc?
Yes.
But I will not start a commercial advertisement here...

:-)

Oh, if your compiler does have a license granting permissions beyond
gcc's, this is one of the times where drawing attention to it here is
probably appropriate. I'm not sure it does, but I'd be happy to be
shown wrong.

You can't embed gcc's source code in your application to generate
dynamically C code and execute it on the fly.
This is not entirely true, and regardless, this appears to be no better
in lcc-win32.
You can't embed gcc into your application to compile dynamically c code
into a dll/shared object
This is not entirely true, and regardless, this appears to be no better
in lcc-win32.
You can't use gcc as a back end for your proprietary language, mainly
because it is too slow, but also too complex to adapt and modify.
This has nothing to do with the license.
In general the source code of gcc is 10 times bigger than the source of
gcc.
This has nothing to do with the license.

Okay, so this wasn't one of the times where drawing attention to your
compiler was a good idea. I should've emphasised the "if" in my previous
post. Unless there's a case where gcc's license forbids the same action
that *is* possible legally with your compiler, you shouldn't bring it up
here, and instead stick with where and when it's topical.
Dec 28 '07 #181
Chris Hills wrote:
ja*********@verizon.net writes
>>
However, I would not agree that "Yank" is as much of an insult
as "Talib" (the singular form of "Taliban").

In many many parts of the world "yank" is a worse insult.
In fact in some parts of the world Yank has been changed to
"septic" as in septic-tank == yank.
Well, I live in Maine, which is a major portion of New England. I
would be hard put to find anybody that even got annoyed at a 'Yank'
appellation. If a name doesn't annoy those whom it describes, can
it possibly be considered insulting? Do you get hot under the
collar when described as 'English' or 'British'?

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 28 '07 #182
Chris Hills wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Malcolm McLean wrote:
... snip ...
>>>
gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,

No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.

Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.

Quite a restrictive license...
How so? In the case of lcc-win, for example, you don't have the
source code. This makes it totally impossible to use it in any
way. With gcc, you can incorporate that source code as long as you
license the result under GPL. Seems a good deal freer. Not to
mention the restriction against using lcc-win binaries in
commercial projects, which doesn't exist for gcc.

Notice that I am not even mentioning the impossibilities associated
with Microslush code.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 28 '07 #183
user923005 wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgwrote:
>Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.orgwrites:
>>The problem is that now the MS library is "official" they have
started to use official words like "depreciate" for anything
else. This just shows that a company in MS's position can
subvert the standards process.

[...]

I believe the word is "deprecate", not "depreciate".

Maybe it should be "defecate". Seems odd that they could not just
make fopen() work safely in the first place.
In a way we are lucky. MS likes to push its name to the forefront
at all times, so we probably won't get MS FUD without at least
hints as to the origin. This makes it easier to ignore.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 29 '07 #184
ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Default User wrote:
David Laudedale wrote:
On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

Every step along the way, the "Taleban" aspect of this thread has been
off-topic.
Which is why I killfiled that person immediately, and resisted any
temptation to hit the bait.
I'd be more than happy to obey a moratorium on all politically charged
discussions; but the starting point of that in this case would have
been to use some metaphor with fewer violent connotations than
"Taleban" to describe C fundamentalists.
"He started it!" The oldest excuse around. That gives you no reason to
escalate.

Brian
Dec 29 '07 #185
In article <47***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>ja*********@verizon.net writes
>>>
However, I would not agree that "Yank" is as much of an insult
as "Talib" (the singular form of "Taliban").

In many many parts of the world "yank" is a worse insult.
In fact in some parts of the world Yank has been changed to
"septic" as in septic-tank == yank.

Well, I live in Maine, which is a major portion of New England.
Try some where on in N. America......
I
would be hard put to find anybody that even got annoyed at a 'Yank'
appellation. If a name doesn't annoy those whom it describes, can
it possibly be considered insulting? Do you get hot under the
collar when described as 'English' or 'British'?
No.. Nor Limey or anything else for that matter.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Dec 29 '07 #186
Chris Hills said:
In article <47***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
<snip>
>>Well, I live in Maine, which is a major portion of New England.

Try some where on in N. America......
Maine *is* in N. America.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 29 '07 #187
In article <$X**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites
>In article <47***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>ja*********@verizon.net writes

However, I would not agree that "Yank" is as much of an insult
as "Talib" (the singular form of "Taliban").

In many many parts of the world "yank" is a worse insult.
In fact in some parts of the world Yank has been changed to
"septic" as in septic-tank == yank.

Well, I live in Maine, which is a major portion of New England.

Try some where on in N. America......
Sorry... Somewhere NOT in N. America. Come to that try calling a
Canadian a "Yank" :-)
> I
would be hard put to find anybody that even got annoyed at a 'Yank'
appellation.
Most Americans don't have a problem with it. (Though I think some
Southern ones would be less pleased)

However in other parts of the world being associated with the Taliban is
great praise and suggesting they are a "yank" would be a major insult.

In thins case the word Taliban was used to describe a religious fanatic
(much as they were when the US funded and trained them) Zellot would
have been equally applicable and possibly less contentious.
>If a name doesn't annoy those whom it describes, can
it possibly be considered insulting? Do you get hot under the
collar when described as 'English' or 'British'?

No.. Nor Limey or anything else for that matter.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Dec 29 '07 #188
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
[snip]
However in other parts of the world being associated with the Taliban
is great praise and suggesting they are a "yank" would be a major
insult.
[snip]

Chris, I know you've advocated broadening the topicality guidelines
for comp.lang.c, but this is ridiculous. Perhaps this thread would be
topical in alt.beat.dead.horse.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
[...]
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 29 '07 #189
On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
David Laudedale wrote:

>>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:


Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.
I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup - as a patriotic American, my duty was to expose the
lies and try to convince the world that not all Americans hate our
country and have contempt for our troops. In point of fact, a clear
majority of Americans are 100% behind the President that they freely and
democratically elected.

Regards
David
Dec 29 '07 #190
David Laudedale said:
On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
>David Laudedale wrote:

>>>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:


Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one.
Wrong.
James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup
No, he wasn't. Masmood was. You have been trolled, and so has James.
- as a patriotic American, my duty was to expose the lies
No, as a responsible Usenetter, your duty was not to rise to troll-bait.
This newsgroup discusses C, not local politics.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 29 '07 #191
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
David Laudedale said:
>On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
>>David Laudedale wrote:
On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one.

Wrong.
Wrong. He owes you sweet FA.
>
>James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup

No, he wasn't. Masmood was. You have been trolled, and so has James.
As have you.
>
>- as a patriotic American, my duty was to expose the lies

No, as a responsible Usenetter, your duty was not to rise to troll-bait.
This newsgroup discusses C, not local politics.
And you are doing what?
Dec 29 '07 #192

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:87************@kvetch.smov.org...
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
[snip]
>However in other parts of the world being associated with the Taliban
is great praise and suggesting they are a "yank" would be a major
insult.
[snip]

Chris, I know you've advocated broadening the topicality guidelines
for comp.lang.c, but this is ridiculous. Perhaps this thread would be
topical in alt.beat.dead.horse.
I've been reading clc all night, as it is, for me, output:
date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:13:09 +0000 (UTC)time is
1198923189from is
ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007
09:53:11 +0000 (UTC)time is
1198921991from is
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.de>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007
09:22:20 +0000 (UTC)time is
1198920140from is
tropics <th*******@hotmail.com>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:19:20 +0000
(UTC)time is
1198919960from is
James Fang <fa**********@gmail.com>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007
03:14:50 -0600time is
1198919690from is
"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.com>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:57:29
+0000 (UTC)time is
1198918649from is
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:51:13 -0600time
is
1198918273from is
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalid>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:27:27
+0000 (UTC)time is

You never admit of the off-brand uses for C, as ISO doesn't have a section
for it. When the Bush admin was forced to announce that it had been spying
on its citizens using so-called data-mining, I thought it only too relevant
to C, but you stopped me dead in my tracks with the objection of topicality.
What other language would you impugn with this felonious behavior?

One other thing: why don't you show up on my radar like everyone else?
--
"I remember when Keith was the other Keith, not a metaphor for an immovable
or irresponsive topic."

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dec 29 '07 #193
In article <fl**********@aioe.org>,
David Laudedale <no*****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
>David Laudedale wrote:

>>>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:


Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup - as a patriotic American, my duty was to expose the
lies and try to convince the world that not all Americans hate our
country and have contempt for our troops.
You're so funny. Just adorable. You go, girl!
>In point of fact, a clear majority of Americans are 100% behind the
President that they freely and democratically elected.
If, by "a clear majority", you mean "about 25%" (GWB's current approval
ratings - the lowest in history - lower even than Nixon just before he
resigned).

Dec 29 '07 #194
I would have posted the following as a private email but you use a false
email address.

In article <fl**********@aioe.org>, David Laudedale
<no*****@nospam.invalidwrites
>On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
>David Laudedale wrote:
>>>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup -
Actually it was you who did the political diatribe.
>as a patriotic American,
I think you will find James too is a patriotic American
>my duty was to expose the lies
He didn't give any lies... on the other hand you did produce a lot of
propaganda.

I can back this up but not here and you didn't give an email address.
>and try to convince the world that not all Americans hate our country
and have contempt for our troops.
I think he has contempt for GWB (as does most of the world) not the
troops. In the UK 80%+ of the population believe it is an illegal war
but support the troops 100% in theatre.
In point of fact, a clear majority of Americans are 100% behind the
President that they freely and democratically elected.
In clear point of FACT..... The collegiate vote was only just better
than 50/50 in favour of GWB after a few recounts. In fact the
population (on a 1 person 1 vote) did not give GWB a majority at the
time.

The best that can be said was about half the country supported GWB. That
was then. Now the opinion poles show that the vast majority do NOT
support GWB. However I think you will find they do support their troops
on the ground. You don't blame the troops for mistakes made by their CiC

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

Dec 29 '07 #195
David Laudedale wrote:
On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
>David Laudedale wrote:

>>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:


Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup ...
I will respond to you by e-mail, if you're willing to give me a valid
address I can use to reach you. Alternatively, I'll be glad to respond
in a more appropriate forum of your choice. However, this discussion
does not belong here.
Dec 29 '07 #196
On 29/12/2007 13:18, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <fl**********@aioe.org>,
David Laudedale <no*****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
>>>David Laudedale wrote:

On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup - as a patriotic American, my duty was to expose the
lies and try to convince the world that not all Americans hate our
country and have contempt for our troops.


You're so funny. Just adorable. You go, girl!

>>In point of fact, a clear majority of Americans are 100% behind the
President that they freely and democratically elected.


If, by "a clear majority", you mean "about 25%" (GWB's current approval
ratings - the lowest in history - lower even than Nixon just before he
resigned).
It's true that the constant sniping attacks from the liberal MSM have
had some effect on his personal popularity. However, if you asked "How
many Americans support our troops?" then I think the answer would be a
*lot* higher than 25%.
Dec 29 '07 #197
In article <fl**********@aioe.org>, David Laudedale
<no*****@nospam.invalidwrites
>On 29/12/2007 13:18, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>In article <fl**********@aioe.org>,
David Laudedale <no*****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>>On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:

David Laudedale wrote:

>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup - as a patriotic American, my duty was to expose
the lies and try to convince the world that not all Americans hate
our country and have contempt for our troops.
You're so funny. Just adorable. You go, girl!
>>>In point of fact, a clear majority of Americans are 100% behind the
President that they freely and democratically elected.
If, by "a clear majority", you mean "about 25%" (GWB's current
approval
ratings - the lowest in history - lower even than Nixon just before he
resigned).

It's true that the constant sniping attacks from the liberal MSM have
had some effect on his personal popularity
Sorry... It is not just "the liberals" it's most of the world.
Including a lot of very right wing groups.
>. However, if you asked "How many Americans support our troops?" then I
think the answer would be a *lot* higher than 25%.
In the UK 95% support the troops but only 25% support the government.
Some people can see the difference.

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

Dec 29 '07 #198
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
In article <fl**********@aioe.org>, David Laudedale
<no*****@nospam.invalidwrites
>>On 29/12/2007 13:18, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>In article <fl**********@aioe.org>,
David Laudedale <no*****@nospam.invalidwrote:

On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:

>David Laudedale wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
>
>
>Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
>stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who
introduced a deliberately offensive and provocative political
diatribe into a technical newsgroup - as a patriotic American, my
duty was to expose the lies and try to convince the world that not
all Americans hate our country and have contempt for our troops.
You're so funny. Just adorable. You go, girl!

In point of fact, a clear majority of Americans are 100% behind the
President that they freely and democratically elected.
If, by "a clear majority", you mean "about 25%" (GWB's current
approval
ratings - the lowest in history - lower even than Nixon just before he
resigned).

It's true that the constant sniping attacks from the liberal MSM
have had some effect on his personal popularity

Sorry... It is not just "the liberals" it's most of the
world. Including a lot of very right wing groups.
>. However, if you asked "How many Americans support our troops?"
then I think the answer would be a *lot* higher than 25%.

In the UK 95% support the troops but only 25% support the government.
Some people can see the difference.
I think here "support" is a euphemism for "feel sorry for". I
don't. When you join the army voluntarily you know you are now the
vassal of the ruling government. I do not support British troops in
Iraq. I wish, for their sakes, they were out of there. I feel sorry for
them being there. I wish there were no more murders or maiming. But I do
not "support" them in their job.
Dec 29 '07 #199
David Laudedale wrote:
On 28/12/2007 18:14, Default User wrote:
David Laudedale wrote:

On 27/12/2007 19:56, ja*********@verizon.net wrote:

Both James and David should ashamed of themselves for dragging that
stuff in here. You both owe apologies to the newsgroup.

I owe an apology to no one.
Incorrect.
James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup
Which you could have ignored. The world would not have come to an end.
- as a patriotic American, my duty was to expose
the lies and try to convince the world that not all Americans hate
our country and have contempt for our troops.
So those who don't are not patriotic?

The discussion was inappropriate for this newsgroup. Period. You could
have stated that, said you disagree, and invited the person to debate
where it is topical.

Again, you owe an apology.


Brian
Dec 29 '07 #200

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.