What do you think about the following book:
C How to Program, 5/E
(Harvey & Paul) Deitel & Associates, Inc.
<http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,3110,0132404168,00.html>
Thanks in advance.
56  2362 
nembo kid said:
What do you think about the following book:
C How to Program, 5/E
(Harvey & Paul) Deitel & Associates, Inc.
<http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,3110,0132404168,00.html>
Prentice Hall were kind enough to send me a copy of this book, but
unfortunately either it has popped out for a pizza and a pint or it's
somewhere on my desk (possibly several strata down), so I can't refer to
it in this reply.
From memory, then:
It's a big book, but that's fixable. If you remove the second half of the
book (which isn't actually about C at all), you can save enough carrying
capacity for not just K&R2 but also "C: A Reference Manual" (Harbison &
Steele).
It's not a clueless book by any means. The authors generally go to some
trouble to learn the languages they write about, and they certainly know
their C.
The explanations are reasonable, and the exercises thought-provoking on
occasion.
Overall, it's a book I can recommend. If ever it re-surfaces, I may take
the time to write a more detailed review (or, to be perfectly honest, I
may not).
--
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
On May 4, 4:19 pm, nembo kid <nembo@kidwrote:
What do you think about the following book:
C How to Program, 5/E
(Harvey & Paul) Deitel & Associates, Inc.
<http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,3110,01324...>
Thanks in advance.
Deitel has some fine programming books, their Java How to Program (7th
ed) is excellent, however they don't seem to have done as well with
their C books. For me the text can be overly verbose and contrived,
the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in, and if I was interested in these things there are books
dedicated to the topics that provide a much better treatment. I would
suggest you check out C Programming: A Modern Approach 2nd Edition
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393979504/knkingwhich just
came out, focuses completely on C and is a fair bit cheaper than
Deitel's offering.
--
Robert Gamble
Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
>
the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
-- Larry Jones
Everybody's a slave to routine. -- Calvin la************@siemens.com said:
Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>
the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
--
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
On Mon, 05 May 2008 04:21:49 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
I think it is a good idea to have this:
for( int i = 0; i != N; ++i)
rather than this:
int i;
for( i = 0;, i != N; ++i )
that way, i is localized. It is a very good idea if i exists primarily for
for loop. It will not pollute the the other namespaces.
Also, IIRC, const in C99, makes a compile time constant. That's good
thing too. At least, I don't have to use enum for array size :P
-- http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
my email ID is @ the above address
arnuld said:
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 04:21:49 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about
it?
I think it is a good idea to have this:
for( int i = 0; i != N; ++i)
rather than this:
int i;
for( i = 0;, i != N; ++i )
<shrugThat doesn't answer my question.
--
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
On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:00:26 +0500, arnuld wrote:
<snip>
Also, IIRC, const in C99, makes a compile time constant. That's good
thing too. At least, I don't have to use enum for array size :P
No, const doesn't do this in C99. However, variable length arrays allow
you to use non-constant expressions in automatic array declarations.
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:U5******************************@bt.com...
la************@siemens.com said:
>Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>>
the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
long long and _Complex, of course...
--
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
Richard Heathfield wrote:
la************@siemens.com said:
>Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
Some of us use it and sad as it may sound, are interesting in it.
--
Ian Collins.
Ian Collins wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>la************@siemens.com said:
>>Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
Some of us use it and sad as it may sound, are interesting in it.
interested..
--
Ian Collins.
Ian Collins said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>la************@siemens.com said:
>>Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about
it?
Some of us use it and sad as it may sound, are interesting in it.
Fine, I can understand that *some* people are interested (or even
interesting!) in C99. But Larry said that *most* people should be
interested. I seem to have munged that to "everyone" in my reply, so I
should modify my question to: why should *most* people be interested in
C99?
Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99 (which I
don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't explain why they
*should* be.
--
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
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99 (which I
don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't explain why they
*should* be.
Because is standard C. And your fight against it has failed. It is the
standard and you will not be able to change that fact.
You are the one that always complains about my compiler system being
"nonstandard" but you are the one the fights the standard as much as you
can.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
arnuld wrote:
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 04:21:49 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
I think it is a good idea to have this:
for( int i = 0; i != N; ++i)
rather than this:
int i;
for( i = 0;, i != N; ++i )
that way, i is localized. It is a very good idea if i exists primarily for
for loop. It will not pollute the the other namespaces.
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i != N; ++i) /* nothing */ ;
}
"is localized" and "will not pollute the other namespaces".
I suppose that by now all current compilers get the duration of i in
for (int i = 0; i != N; ++i) /* nothing */ ;
right, but it wasn't always so. And it is not the same as in the block
version.
Also, IIRC, const in C99, makes a compile time constant.
Well, you recall incorrectly.
That's good
thing too. At least, I don't have to use enum for array size :P
If you depend on something that isn't true, it's _not_ a good thing.
jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99
(which I don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't
explain why they *should* be.
Because is standard C.
This still doesn't explain why most people should be interested in it.
And your fight against it has failed.
I don't see why you think I'm fighting against C99. There's nothing to
fight.
It is the standard and you will not be able to change that fact.
What use is a standard if hardly anyone uses it or is interested in it?
>
You are the one that always complains about my compiler system being
"nonstandard" but you are the one the fights the standard as much as you
can.
Are you claiming that lcc-win32 is now C99-conforming? If not, then you are
demonstrating that at least one implementor doesn't care enough about C99
to implement it. In the face of massive indifference from implementors,
it's actually pretty hard to be interested in C99 even if you want to be.
Please note that, when C99 is as widely implemented as C89, nobody will be
better pleased than I, because we won't have all these silly arguments.
We'll still have silly arguments, of course, but they'll be different
ones.
--
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
On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:10:14 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
Because is standard C. And your fight against it has failed.
I really did not understand what *exactly* you mean by stating this.
-- http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
my email ID is @ the above blog.
just check the "About Myself" page :)
Richard Heathfield wrote, On 05/05/08 08:53:
jacob navia said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99
(which I don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't
explain why they *should* be.
Because is standard C.
This still doesn't explain why most people should be interested in it.
<snip>
So that they can write code that will be portable to C99 implementations
rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
subset without knowing a bit about C99.
--
Flash Gordon
Flash Gordon said:
Richard Heathfield wrote, On 05/05/08 08:53:
>jacob navia said:
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99
(which I don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't
explain why they *should* be.
Because is standard C.
This still doesn't explain why most people should be interested in it.
<snip>
So that they can write code that will be portable to C99 implementations
Name six. :-)
rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
subset without knowing a bit about C99.
Yes. I program in that subset myself. Heaven knows why.
--
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
Richard Heathfield wrote:
la************@siemens.com said:
>Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
That is one of your stupider posts.
Firstly, C99 is the current official standard. Whether one likes it or
not,one will encounter code partly or wholly written to conform to it
and thus one should know about it.
Secondly while *you* may be stuck with tools that only support C89,
and/or be so amazingly crossplatform that you have to stick to the C89
subset that's widely available, most of us actually have access to tools
supporting many features of C99 on enough platforms to be useful.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
Fine, I can understand that *some* people are interested (or even
interesting!) in C99. But Larry said that *most* people should be
interested. I seem to have munged that to "everyone" in my reply, so I
should modify my question to: why should *most* people be interested in
C99?
Clearly *most* people should not be interested in C99, because *most*
people aren't C programmers.
But taking the subset of people who are C programmers, I opine that
almost all of them should be interested in the current official
standard, whether implemented or not by their current compiler maker,
because they will at some point almost certainly encounter C99
constructs and will need to understand them well enough not to break the
code.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
Name six. :-)
What is extant today is irrelevant, as you know perfectly well. There
are several today that support a large part of C99. There may be others
in the future.
>rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
subset without knowing a bit about C99.
Yes. I program in that subset myself. Heaven knows why.
And to do that, you need to know what _is_ a subset of C99. You must
have investigated this, ie shown an interest. Thanks for proving the point.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Mark McIntyre said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>la************@siemens.com said:
>>Robert Gamble <rg*******@gmail.comwrote:
the fact that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to C++
and Allegro (a video game library) is a big turn-off for me. For over
$100 I don't want half the text devoted to something I am not
interested in
Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about
it?
That is one of your stupider posts.
Possibly, but it's still brighter than the brightest posts of some people I
could mention but won't (and no, I don't mean you).
Firstly, C99 is the current official standard. Whether one likes it or
not,one will encounter code partly or wholly written to conform to it
and thus one should know about it.
How does that make it an *interesting* subject? Whether I like it or not, I
have to pay almost five pounds a gallon for petrol, but that doesn't mean
I find petrol particularly interesting. I can certainly imagine, of
course, that there /are/ people out there who find petrol to be an
absolutely riveting subject. But I'm not one of them, and they're not in a
majority, and nobody says they *should* be in a majority. So why is C99
any different? What is it about C99 that Larry thinks most people *should*
be interested in?
Secondly while *you* may be stuck with tools that only support C89,
If by "tools" you mean "C compilers", well, yes, it's true that I don't
have a C99-conforming implementation. But then neither do most people. In
any case, this isn't about *me* or *you*. It's about *most* people.
Neither you nor I is, are, or am most people.
and/or be so amazingly crossplatform that you have to stick to the C89
subset that's widely available, most of us actually have access to tools
supporting many features of C99 on enough platforms to be useful.
And in what way is this interesting to most people? I still don't get it.
--
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
Mark McIntyre said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
Name six. :-)
What is extant today is irrelevant, as you know perfectly well. There
are several today that support a large part of C99. There may be others
in the future.
And porcine aviation is just around the corner.
>>rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
subset without knowing a bit about C99.
Yes. I program in that subset myself. Heaven knows why.
And to do that, you need to know what _is_ a subset of C99. You must
have investigated this, ie shown an interest. Thanks for proving the
point.
The fact that I investigated C99 myself does *not* demonstrate that *most*
people *should* be interested in C99, which is what Larry claimed. I am
not most people.
--
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
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:27:25 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
If by "tools" you mean "C compilers", well, yes, it's true that I don't
have a C99-conforming implementation. But then neither do most people. In
any case, this isn't about *me* or *you*. It's about *most* people.
Neither you nor I is, are, or am most people.
Richard cares about portability :)
but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no compiler
have implemented it yet ?
-- http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
my email ID is @ the above blog.
just check the "About Myself" page :)
Richard Heathfield wrote, On 05/05/08 11:26:
Flash Gordon said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote, On 05/05/08 08:53:
>>jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Even if it could be shown that most people *are* interested in C99
(which I don't think anyone is really claiming), it still wouldn't
explain why they *should* be.
>
Because is standard C.
This still doesn't explain why most people should be interested in it.
<snip>
So that they can write code that will be portable to C99 implementations
Name six. :-)
Fred, Jim, Sheila, Jenny, George, and Matilda.
Well, you asked me to name them, not tell you what names they already
had ;-)
>rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
subset without knowing a bit about C99.
Yes. I program in that subset myself. Heaven knows why.
You want to maximise portability? There are, after all, a few C99
implementations, and one day gcc might join those ranks.
--
Flash Gordon
Not holding my breath.
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Mark McIntyre said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]
>>Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about
it?
[...]
>and/or be so amazingly crossplatform that you have to stick to the C89
subset that's widely available, most of us actually have access to tools
supporting many features of C99 on enough platforms to be useful.
And in what way is this interesting to most people? I still don't get it.
Um, in what way is the question of whether or not C99 is interesting
to most people interesting to *anyone*?
(Hyperbole alert: I'm sure that some people are interested in the
subject, just not enough to justify such a long thread.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>Mark McIntyre said:
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]
>>>Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about
it?
[...]
>>and/or be so amazingly crossplatform that you have to stick to the C89
subset that's widely available, most of us actually have access to
tools supporting many features of C99 on enough platforms to be useful.
And in what way is this interesting to most people? I still don't get
it.
Um, in what way is the question of whether or not C99 is interesting
to most people interesting to *anyone*?
I'm not actually interested in whether C99 is interesting to most people.
What interests me is Larry's reasoning for his claim that most people
should be interested in C99. He seems reluctant to explain this (or he's
enjoying a long weekend).
(Hyperbole alert: I'm sure that some people are interested in the
subject, just not enough to justify such a long thread.)
I'm surprised by the quality, as well as the quantity, of the responses.
Only one line there, but try to read between it anyway. :-)
--
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
In article <U5******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>la************@siemens.com said:
>Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
If enough C programmers become interested in C99, the people
responsible for the widely-used implementations might decide it's worth
supporting the whole standard instead of just the parts that are
convenient for them, which will make it rather more widely available
(and therefore rather more interesting) than it is now.
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande at eskimo dot com
It's not 'lusing' when it works very well. Contemptible, maybe, but
not 'lusing'.
--Lionel in the scary devil monastery dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid said:
In article <U5******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>la************@siemens.com said:
>>Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
If enough C programmers become interested in C99, the people
responsible for the widely-used implementations might decide it's worth
supporting the whole standard instead of just the parts that are
convenient for them, which will make it rather more widely available
(and therefore rather more interesting) than it is now.
Best answer yet - well done. But I detect a hint of circularity. You seem
to be saying that people should be interested in C99 because being so will
increase its intrinsic interest. In other words, it isn't interesting
*yet*, but might become so eventually if we all pretend for long enough.
--
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
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Mark McIntyre said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Name six. :-)
What is extant today is irrelevant, as you know perfectly well. There
are several today that support a large part of C99. There may be others
in the future.
And porcine aviation is just around the corner.
Fascinating but lets not forget that your opinion of the likelihood is
irrelevant, just as its irrelevant whether a given implementation
defines fflush(stdin) or void main(), or uses 8-bit bytes, or a stack.
The fact that I investigated C99 myself does *not* demonstrate that *most*
people *should* be interested in C99, which is what Larry claimed. I am
not most people.
You're a typical C programmer, with typical C programmer's needs. Why do
you believe you're special?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Mark McIntyre said:
>That is one of your stupider posts.
Possibly, but it's still brighter than the brightest posts of some people I
could mention but won't
Absolutely... :-)
>Secondly while *you* may be stuck with tools that only support C89,
If by "tools" you mean "C compilers", well, yes, it's true that I don't
have a C99-conforming implementation. But then neither do most people.
I believe you're being disingenuously pedantic.
I strongly suspect you'll find that most people *do* have access to an
implementation that supports a great many C99 features -not all of them,
but a great many.
>In
any case, this isn't about *me* or *you*. It's about *most* people.
Neither you nor I is, are, or am most people.
However its my belief that we're both essentially typical. I don't
personally think I'm some sort of special case anyway.
>and/or be so amazingly crossplatform that you have to stick to the C89
subset that's widely available, most of us actually have access to tools
supporting many features of C99 on enough platforms to be useful.
And in what way is this interesting to most people? I still don't get it.
Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension instead of pedantry.
Oh wait - you mean that even though C99 features exist and are
available, you believe they're inherently uninteresting, useless and to
be shunned. We're getting to the crux here, I think. The basic message
is indeed that RJH dislikes C99 and won't use it for reasons of pure
personal bias. Correct?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>
I'm not actually interested in whether C99 is interesting to most people.
What interests me is Larry's reasoning for his claim that most people
should be interested in C99. He seems reluctant to explain this (or he's
enjoying a long weekend).
Other people have already said everything I would have said...
I'm surprised by the quality, as well as the quantity, of the responses.
and done so better than I would have. :-)
-- Larry Jones
I think my cerebellum just fused. -- Calvin
In article <N-******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid said:
>In article <U5******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>>la************@siemens.com said:
>>>Also, their treatment of C99, which most people *should* be interested
in, is cursory at best.
Why should everyone be interested in C99? What's so interesting about it?
If enough C programmers become interested in C99, the people
responsible for the widely-used implementations might decide it's worth
supporting the whole standard instead of just the parts that are
convenient for them, which will make it rather more widely available
(and therefore rather more interesting) than it is now.
Best answer yet - well done. But I detect a hint of circularity. You seem
to be saying that people should be interested in C99 because being so will
increase its intrinsic interest. In other words, it isn't interesting
*yet*, but might become so eventually if we all pretend for long enough.
Well, yes, that's the difference between "most people should be
interested in it" and "it is interesting".
It's more a bootstrapping problem than a circularity in the argument.
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande at eskimo dot com
And the people around you will judge your reasons, and they _should_. (They
should, of course, make reasonable evaluations rather than stupid ones.)
--Alan J Rosenthal in the scary devil monastery
Mark McIntyre said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Mark McIntyre said:
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
Name six. :-)
What is extant today is irrelevant, as you know perfectly well. There
are several today that support a large part of C99. There may be others
in the future.
And porcine aviation is just around the corner.
Fascinating but lets not forget that your opinion of the likelihood is
irrelevant, just as its irrelevant whether a given implementation
defines fflush(stdin) or void main(), or uses 8-bit bytes, or a stack.
Interest, or the lack thereof, is in fact a matter of opinion. If we are
allowed to pick and choose amongst opinions to decide which ones are
relevant and which are not, then we can draw any conclusion we like - but
that isn't going to help us get closer to the truth.
>The fact that I investigated C99 myself does *not* demonstrate that
*most* people *should* be interested in C99, which is what Larry
claimed. I am not most people.
You're a typical C programmer, with typical C programmer's needs. Why do
you believe you're special?
I didn't say I did believe that. If I am representative of C programmers in
general (which I do not claim), then C programmers in general have
investigated C99 and discovered that it doesn't buy them anything
significant that they don't already have. Is that what you meant?
--
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
Mark McIntyre said:
<snip>
Oh wait - you mean that even though C99 features exist and are
available, you believe they're inherently uninteresting, useless and to
be shunned.
That isn't what I said. All I wanted to know was why Larry thought that
most people should be interested in C99.
We're getting to the crux here, I think. The basic message
is indeed that RJH dislikes C99 and won't use it for reasons of pure
personal bias. Correct?
How can I possibly dislike C99? I haven't even met it!
--
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 la************@siemens.com said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>
I'm not actually interested in whether C99 is interesting to most
people. What interests me is Larry's reasoning for his claim that most
people should be interested in C99. He seems reluctant to explain this
(or he's enjoying a long weekend).
Other people have already said everything I would have said...
>I'm surprised by the quality, as well as the quantity, of the responses.
and done so better than I would have. :-)
Oh. They did? Oooooh deary me. Deary deary me. :-)
--
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
On 5 May, 12:16, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.netwrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Name six. :-)
What is extant today is irrelevant,
on the contrary its very relevant. One of Cs great
features is its portability. If you start using C99
you loose that. The lack of implementations is *very*
relevant.
as you know perfectly well.
I don't
There
are several today that support a large part of C99.
that's no good unless they implement the *same* "large part".
Is there a formal ISO definition of "large part"?
There may be others in the future.
or there may not.
rather than just C89/C90/C95. Admittedly that does not require much
knowledge of C99, however you can't ensure you are using the common
subset without knowing a bit about C99.
Yes. I program in that subset myself. Heaven knows why.
And to do that, you need to know what _is_ a subset of C99. You must
have investigated this, ie shown an interest. Thanks for proving the
point.
good point!
--
Nick Keighley
De maan likt niet hoog
Maar het is niet zo
De maan is wel hoog
Of niet sams?
On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <sunr...@domain.tldwrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:27:25 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
If by "tools" you mean "C compilers", well, yes, it's true that I
don't have a C99-conforming implementation. But then neither do
most people. In any case, this isn't about *me* or *you*. It's
about *most* people. Neither you nor I is, are, or am most people.
Richard cares about portability :)
but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
compiler have implemented it yet ?
I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.
--
Nick Keighley
On Tue, 06 May 2008 03:34:55 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <sunr...@domain.tldwrote:
but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
compiler have implemented it yet ?
I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.
it has been implemented twice and there is no compiler that supports the
C99 completely( or properly)
??
-- http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/
my email ID is @ the above blog.
just check the "About Myself" page :)
arnuld wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 03:34:55 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <sunr...@domain.tldwrote:
but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
compiler have implemented it yet ?
>I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.
it has been implemented twice and there is no compiler that supports
the C99 completely( or properly)
??
The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have implemented about
90% of C99.
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have implemented about
90% of C99.
According to
<http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
>The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have implemented about
90% of C99.
According to
<http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.
At least for C++, it uses the EDG Front End (which is also used as Comeau)
so that's not surprising.
I just wonder if like gcc it simply uses the system library or if it
provides all of it.
A+
--
Jean-Marc
In message <g0**********@registered.motzarella.org>, santosh
<sa*********@gmail.comwrites
>arnuld wrote:
>On Tue, 06 May 2008 03:34:55 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <sunr...@domain.tldwrote:
but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
compiler have implemented it yet ?
>>I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.
it has been implemented twice and there is no compiler that supports
the C99 completely( or properly)
??
The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
that's the only one.
Almost. The reasons being there is no reason to go to C99.
>I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
full C99 hosted implementation.
However they were done AFAIK for political reasons
>Intel and gcc have implemented about
90% of C99.
Not so for Gcc apparently I understand that it is no more C99 than the
majority of other compilers out there.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
In message <g0**********@registered.motzarella.org>, santosh
<sa*********@gmail.comwrites
[...]
>>I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
full C99 hosted implementation.
However they were done AFAIK for political reasons
Does the reason it was done affect the quality of the implementation?
Or anything else?
>>Intel and gcc have implemented about
90% of C99.
Not so for Gcc apparently I understand that it is no more C99 than
the majority of other compilers out there.
gcc's C99 status is posted at <http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>. I
don't know about the majority of other compilers, but for example I
understand that Microsoft has made very little effort to conform to
C99 beyond "long long" and "//".
I've already posted Intel's statement that their compiler conforms to
C99. I can't confirm it, but I have no particular reason to doubt it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
In message <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites
>Chris H <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
>In message <g0**********@registered.motzarella.org>, santosh
<sa*********@gmail.comwrites
[...]
>>>I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
full C99 hosted implementation.
However they were done AFAIK for political reasons
Does the reason it was done affect the quality of the implementation?
No idea. It might do.
>Or anything else?
>>>Intel and gcc have implemented about
90% of C99.
Not so for Gcc apparently I understand that it is no more C99 than
the majority of other compilers out there.
gcc's C99 status is posted at <http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>. I
don't know about the majority of other compilers, but for example I
understand that Microsoft has made very little effort to conform to
C99 beyond "long long" and "//".
So what. As M$ will tell you no one they know gives a rats arse about
C99 compatibility. Come to that neither does the vast majority of the
embedded world (which is arguably a much larger users of C than M$ users
are. )
>I've already posted Intel's statement that their compiler conforms to
C99. I can't confirm it, but I have no particular reason to doubt it.
Me neither. However I can supply about 50 compilers from half a dozen
suppliers and none of them or their customers seem to have any great
interest in C99
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On 4 May, 21:19, nembo kid <nembo@kidwrote:
What do you think about the following book:
C How to Program, 5/E
(Harvey & Paul) Deitel & Associates, Inc.
<http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,3110,01324...>
I haven't actually read it , only browsed it at a
bookstore and it may have been an earlier edition
so take my opinion with a large grain of salt.
The one thing that stood out for me was the number
and quality of exercises. Apart from the "self-contained"
exercises there are others which form a sequence
from chapter to chapter where you use what you
learned at the latest chapter to add extra features to a
programme which you started on a previous chapter.
If you follow such a sequence of exercises to the end
you will end up with a fairly sophisticated programme.
Personally I have no difficulty coming up with exercises
or projects of my own when I'm learning a new language
but from the questions we get here every now and again
other people do so the abundance and quality of exercises
in this book is a big plus in my opinion.
I also liked the tips and pitfalls scattered throughout the
book and the overall presentation with that comics
figure from the cover appearing inside.
I consider it an advantage that it covers a portable games
library because many more people will learn C with the
purpose of writing games or at least doing graphics
rather than writing command line utilities.
I don't like the fact that it goes into C++ because it
creates the impression that the natural place to go
after C is C++. Threads we have seen here with
titles like "Why haven't you switched to C++?" or
something similar indicate that many people share
such an impression and it's a major annoyance of
mine.
Apart from that it looks like a good book.
On 5 May, 00:37, Robert Gamble <rgambl...@gmail.comwrote:
I would
suggest you check out C Programming: A Modern Approach 2nd Edition
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393979504/knkingwhich just
came out, focuses completely on C and is a fair bit cheaper than
Deitel's offering.
It looks interesting. But I find it a bit puzzling
that amazon has a combined offer of the book
with "Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art".
Spiros Bousbouras said:
On 5 May, 00:37, Robert Gamble <rgambl...@gmail.comwrote:
>I would
suggest you check out C Programming: A Modern Approach 2nd Edition
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393979504/knkingwhich just
came out, focuses completely on C and is a fair bit cheaper than
Deitel's offering.
It looks interesting. But I find it a bit puzzling
that amazon has a combined offer of the book
with "Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art".
I don't see why that's puzzling. The logic is clear[1]:
A) Someone who buys a book called "Understanding Comics" is clearly someone
who doesn't currently understand comics.
B) The Deitel book contains a comic figure (I don't actually remember this,
and I can't check because my own copy has gone walkies, but someone
mentioned this elsethread and I believe them). It is therefore unsuitable
for someone who doesn't understand comics.
C) Ergo, the best book for such a person (assuming they already have K&R)
is King. QED.
Seriously, both books are fine, although I share the irritation that much
of the Deitel offering is wasted on a fly-by-night derived work - the
authors would have done better to keep their focus on the language proper,
the language that it says on the tin.
[1] Sketchy? Yes. Full of holes and fallacies? Sure. Easily disproved? Of
course. But nevertheless very, very, clear.
--
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
Keith Thompson wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
>The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know
whether that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler
is also a full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have
implemented about 90% of C99.
According to
<http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.
But their documentation (which you can access after you install it)
seems to suggest otherwise. For example the following is a quotation
from the compiler manual for version 10.1.015 (Linux) over here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
Conformance to the C Standard
The Intel® C++ Compiler provides conformance to the ANSI/ISO standard
for C language compilation (ISO/IEC 9899:1990). This standard requires
that conforming C compilers accept minimum translation limits. This
compiler exceeds all of the ANSI/ISO requirements for minimum
translation limits.
C99 Support
The following C99 features are supported in this version of the Intel
C++ Compiler:
* restricted pointers (restrict keyword).
* variable-length Arrays
* flexible array members
* complex number support (_Complex keyword)
* hexadecimal floating-point constants
* compound literals
* designated initializers
* mixed declarations and code
* macros with a variable number of arguments
* inline functions (inline keyword)
* boolean type (_Bool keyword)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So as you can see Intel's C99 support seems to be less complete than
gcc.
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
>>The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know
whether that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler
is also a full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have
implemented about 90% of C99.
According to
<http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.
But their documentation (which you can access after you install it)
seems to suggest otherwise. For example the following is a quotation
from the compiler manual for version 10.1.015 (Linux) over here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Conformance to the C Standard
The Intel® C++ Compiler provides conformance to the ANSI/ISO standard
for C language compilation (ISO/IEC 9899:1990). This standard requires
that conforming C compilers accept minimum translation limits. This
compiler exceeds all of the ANSI/ISO requirements for minimum
translation limits.
C99 Support
The following C99 features are supported in this version of the Intel
C++ Compiler:
* restricted pointers (restrict keyword).
* variable-length Arrays
* flexible array members
* complex number support (_Complex keyword)
* hexadecimal floating-point constants
* compound literals
* designated initializers
* mixed declarations and code
* macros with a variable number of arguments
* inline functions (inline keyword)
* boolean type (_Bool keyword)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So as you can see Intel's C99 support seems to be less complete than
gcc.
Or perhaps the documentation is out of sync with the compiler.
Suggestion: Write a few small programs that use C99-specific features
that aren't in that list, and see if Intel's compiler can handle them.
If not, complain to Intel (there's a "Contact us" link on the web page
I cited above). And if it does, tell them to update their feature
list, or just replace it with a conformance statement.
I'd do it myself, but I don't have the Intel compiler (yes, I know
it's a free download, I just haven't gotten around to it).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Perttu Pulkkinen |
last post by:
Hi all freaks!
I have been thinking hard, what would be good solution for a
straight-forward content management. I want to forget polls and forms etc..
and concentrate first only on different...
|
by: Kari Laitinen |
last post by:
During the past 15 years I have been writing computer
programs with so-called natural names, which means
that the names (identifiers, symbols) in progarms
are constructed of several natural words....
|
by: Duel of the Fetts |
last post by:
I've been working on a CSS layout for a little while and I've managed
to get a page put together that looks like what I want:
http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~p5yu/vfx.htm
(none of the links work...
|
by: Wysiwyg |
last post by:
I was hoping to get some opinions on the efficiency of various methods of
reusing the same dropdown list data.
Here is the situation:
Multiple panels on maintenance pages with TAB menus across...
|
by: Jay Parlar |
last post by:
I was hoping to get some c.l.p. opinions on O'Reilly's new Twisted book.
I'm coming at Twisted as someone who's been programming mainly in
Python for almost 6 years now, but who's never done any...
| | |
by: John Swan |
last post by:
Please, I have just created this site and am wondering what your opinion is
from both professionals and amatures or the curious alike.
Any opinions?
www.integrated-dev-sol.co.uk
Remove 123...
|
by: GaryDean |
last post by:
I'm involved in an assessment of the CSLA Framework developed by Rockford
Lhotka. I would like to hear from anyone who has experience and opinions
regarding the viability and usefulness of this...
|
by: demandingdata |
last post by:
Hello,
I am looking for a few opinions. I am exploring creating my own version of those fancy tee shirt designers used by spreadshirt.com, cafepress.com and others. I have a version working of a...
|
by: Prisoner at War |
last post by:
Friends, your opinions and advice, please:
I have a very simple JavaScript image-swap which works on my end but
when uploaded to my host at http://buildit.sitesell.com/sunnyside.html
does not...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
| | |
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated ...
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence...
| |
