An Authors View on C

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Fao, Sean, Oct 19, 2003.

  1. Fao, Sean

    Fao, Sean Guest

    A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author.  I also find it
    hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    could be wrong.

    See what you think:

    http://www.embedded.com
    showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DOBHEJ2YZUKUQSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=15306089

    Sean
    --
    Remove I-WANT-NO-SPAM to reply in email.
    Fao, Sean, Oct 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fao, Sean wrote:

    > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    > was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author. I also find
    > it hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    > could be wrong.
    >
    > See what you think:
    >
    > http://www.embedded.com
    > showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DOBHEJ2YZUKUQSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=15306089


    It is true that C allows you to do stupid things. It is also true that C
    allows you to do clever things. C doesn't get in your way. It's up to you.
    If you'd rather it were up to the language to protect you from yourself,
    you're using the wrong language. C is powerful, like a chainsaw. And just
    like a chainsaw, it can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. That doesn't
    mean that C is a bad language, any more than chainsaws are bad tools.

    The 99% figure is wrong. Only 90% of PC programs have memory leaks. (So
    prove me wrong.) Cf Sturgeon's Law.

    --
    Richard Heathfield :
    "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
    C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
    Richard Heathfield, Oct 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fao, Sean

    jacob navia Guest

    "Fao, Sean" <-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
    news:9vBkb.111804$...
    > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    > was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author. I also find it
    > hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    > could be wrong.
    >
    > See what you think:
    >
    > http://www.embedded.com
    > showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DOBHEJ2YZUKUQSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=15306089


    That article has many points. The basic principle is stated at the start:

    >>

    C, the most popular of all embedded languages, is an utter disaster, a bizarre hodgepodge meant to
    give the programmer far too much control over the computer. C++ isn't much better. The languages are
    designed to provide infinite flexibility, to let the developer do anything that can be done on the
    computer.

    <<
    You have to limit what the programmer can do to avoid mistakes. This is a bad conclusion from real
    facts like the difficulty of using correctly malloc and free.

    I proposed garbage collection as the means of solving this. GC allows you to avoid
    malloc and free. See http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32.

    Another real fact is the primitive string type in C and the absence of bounds
    checking of arrays, specially strings. The use of a bounded array type is long
    overdue and C will continue to have critics that will point out this defficiency in the
    language as long as no solution is proposed by the standard.

    It is a pity that we go on with a badly conceived data type. Bounded strings would
    be really a bonus for the language. We are in the final phase of releasing a string
    package for the above implementation.

    Bounded strings are much faster than traditional strings. The strlen() function
    is just a memory read: you just access the "size" field.

    Other functions like strcat and others can be implemented *much* faster and
    without any buffer overflows.

    The whole package is easier to do with the garbage collector.

    The other points in the article are ridiculous. He says, for instance

    >>

    C has no formatting rules. It's easy and usual to write source in astonishingly cryptic ways. Any
    language that allows utterly random use of the ENTER key (it's perfectly legit to hit ENTER after
    almost every character in C) is more an encryption tool than an aid to creating reliable and
    maintainable code.

    <<

    Now, if you can't even format your own program as you seem fit...

    jacob
    jacob navia, Oct 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Fao, Sean

    Joe Wright Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >
    > Fao, Sean wrote:
    >
    > > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    > > was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author. I also find
    > > it hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    > > could be wrong.
    > >
    > > See what you think:
    > >
    > > http://www.embedded.com
    > > showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DOBHEJ2YZUKUQSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=15306089

    >
    > It is true that C allows you to do stupid things. It is also true that C
    > allows you to do clever things. C doesn't get in your way. It's up to you.
    > If you'd rather it were up to the language to protect you from yourself,
    > you're using the wrong language. C is powerful, like a chainsaw. And just
    > like a chainsaw, it can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. That doesn't
    > mean that C is a bad language, any more than chainsaws are bad tools.
    >
    > The 99% figure is wrong. Only 90% of PC programs have memory leaks. (So
    > prove me wrong.) Cf Sturgeon's Law.
    >

    The chainsaw analogy notwithstanding, C allows me to "scrape paint" all
    the way down to "bare metal". It is precise as a fine surgeon's scalpel.
    Memory leaks, whatever they are, have nothing to do with C. Statistics
    show that 98.7 percent of all statistics are made up. I don't know what
    caviar has to do with this. Dammit, where's my drink?
    --
    Joe Wright http://www.jw-wright.com
    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
    --- Albert Einstein ---
    Joe Wright, Oct 19, 2003
    #4
  5. C is fine language for good programmers. It's a bad language for bad programmers.

    IMO the language should have never become popular, since most programmers are not good enough for the language. However, human
    nature being what it is, most programmers do not see themselves as being the bad programmers that they are.


    "Fao, Sean" <-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote in message news:9vBkb.111804$...
    > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    > was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author. I also find it
    > hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    > could be wrong.
    >
    > See what you think:
    >
    > http://www.embedded.com
    > showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DOBHEJ2YZUKUQSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=15306089
    >
    > Sean
    > --
    > Remove I-WANT-NO-SPAM to reply in email.
    Ricardo Gibert, Oct 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Fao, Sean

    Malcolm Guest

    "jacob navia" <> wrote in message
    > You have to limit what the programmer can do to avoid mistakes. This > is

    a bad conclusion from real facts like the difficulty of using correctly
    > malloc and free.
    >

    The malloc free problem is the consequence of paring the language down so
    that these are just ordinary functions.
    >
    > I proposed garbage collection as the means of solving this. GC allows >

    you to avoid malloc and free. See
    > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lccwin32.
    >

    There's a case for garbage collection, but why not just use C++ and the
    standard template library if you want a higher-level langauge?
    >
    > Another real fact is the primitive string type in C and the absence of
    > bounds checking of arrays, specially strings. The use of a bounded
    > array type is long overdue and C will continue to have critics that will
    > point out this defficiency in the language as long as no solution is
    > proposed by the standard.
    >

    Just about everyone has a go at a better string library for C. Asciiz
    strings are easy to implement and work with, and in most programs string
    handling isn't a bottleneck. Again, why not go for C++ if you want a
    built-in string class?
    >
    > Bounded strings are much faster than traditional strings. The strlen()
    > function is just a memory read: you just access the "size" field.
    >

    Sure. But you're changing the spirit of the langauge by putting in support
    for them eg

    string foo = "FRED"; actually fills a structure with information about the
    string literal.
    >
    > Other functions like strcat and others can be implemented *much*
    > faster and without any buffer overflows.
    >

    Though implementation time includes programmer time as well as CPU time, and
    for many applications is much more important.
    >
    > The whole package is easier to do with the garbage collector.
    >

    Exactly. Once you start messing about with structures and dynamically memory
    for strings you have to free them, adding complexity to your program, or you
    have to have some automatic garbage scheme, adding complexity to the
    compiler.
    Malcolm, Oct 19, 2003
    #6
  7. Fao, Sean

    Fao, Sean Guest

    Joe Wright wrote:

    > Statistics show that 98.7 percent of all statistics
    > are made up.


    Is this one of them? ;-)

    --
    Remove I-WANT-NO-SPAM to reply in email.
    Fao, Sean, Oct 20, 2003
    #7
  8. On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:06:29 -0700
    "j" <> wrote:

    > He should define ``perfect''. This of course is something based on
    > ones ideological reasoning.
    > I personally think one can achieve ``perfect''(robust, flawless) code
    > in C by undertsanding its pitfalls.
    >


    I don't know how he can say "perfect" a code.
    Most of the problems he says was about careless programmers.

    A careless programmer doesn't perfect his code... because he doesn't
    care about.

    --
    --
    ThE_TemPLaR
    Eddahbi Karim, Oct 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Fao, Sean

    brendon Guest

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:06:29 +0000, j wrote:

    >

    But only a beginner would so. And as such, such a
    > novice shouldn't be using the language for _any_ serious development until
    > they have actually understood the language. I really don't see the
    >logic.


    myself being a beginner in c i have a bit of understanding of
    pascal/delphi. I agree with you on that statement. it doesn't matter
    what language you use, you shouldn't be doing any serious stuff until you
    know excatly what you are doing, and not be afraid to ask for help if you
    suspect a problem, experienced people are only to willing to help as i
    have found out in the past.

    > (Using a chainsaw as an example after reading Richard Heathfield's post) I
    > can walk around with a chainsaw and cut people up with it, but does this
    > mean that I should? And because I can do this, does it make a chainsaw a
    > crappy tool?


    execatly


    > Understanding the semantics of C is not something that will be achieved in
    > 21 days, 24 hours, or what have you.


    he might have read those books but you have to experiment with the
    language and not be afraid to ask. not doing that sort of thing the
    person concerned ain't going to get very far. reading the books are fine
    but it is going beyond what is written is the idea.


    > ``But no language should allow stupid mistakes like buffer overruns or
    > undetected array overflows. ''



    debugging, and using testing.



    > They are only mistakes when the careless C programmer is using them in
    > incorrect situations.
    > I myself, have never had a problem with buffer overflows. You might find
    > yourself fall afoul to this issue if you haven't given the algorithm for
    > solving a problem, some actual thought.


    so true



    > ``Geodesic claims 99% of all PC programs (most written in C and C++ of
    > course) have memory leaks, all caused by poor use of malloc() and free().''
    > And of what percentage is this done by the careless programmer? I wouldn't
    > be surprised if careless programmers counted for the majority. But he just
    > fails to hint at that because it wouldn't make his poor point.


    if a delphi news group, i had seen a similar type of critisism<spelling>
    and like you say it was the programmer fault, his code was shotty, and
    hard to follow, and this particular person had mem leaks, and process
    leaks(cpu maxing out).
    brendon, Oct 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Fao, Sean

    j Guest

    "Fao, Sean" <-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
    news:9vBkb.111804$...
    > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    > was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author. I also find it
    > hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    > could be wrong.
    >
    > See what you think:
    >
    > http://www.embedded.com
    > showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DOBHEJ2YZUKUQSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=15306089
    >
    > Sean
    > --
    > Remove I-WANT-NO-SPAM to reply in email.


    ``C, the most popular of all embedded languages, is an utter disaster, a
    bizarre hodgepodge meant to give the programmer far too much control over
    the computer.''

    Too much of what he says is aimed around miniscule problems that clueless C
    programmers can fall into.
    Oh, I can dereference a null pointer, I don't have to get a diagnostic for
    doing so, that is right. But only a beginner would so. And as such, such a
    novice shouldn't be using the language for _any_ serious development until
    they have actually understood the language. I really don't see the logic.
    (Using a chainsaw as an example after reading Richard Heathfield's post) I
    can walk around with a chainsaw and cut people up with it, but does this
    mean that I should? And because I can do this, does it make a chainsaw a
    crappy tool?

    Understanding the semantics of C is not something that will be achieved in
    21 days, 24 hours, or what have you. What does this guy want? Does he
    actually want to learn the pitfalls of C so he knows what to avoid and to
    better himself as a programmer in C or does he want to be able to use a
    language which is completely faultless? Oh, perhaps he would like to design
    such a language that is entirely faultless. I think his criticisms are
    extremely poor and could be concluded by anyone that say, finished reading
    ``Teach Yourself C In 21 Days".


    ``But no language should allow stupid mistakes like buffer overruns or
    undetected array overflows. ''

    They are only mistakes when the careless C programmer is using them in
    incorrect situations.
    I myself, have never had a problem with buffer overflows. You might find
    yourself fall afoul to this issue if you haven't given the algorithm for
    solving a problem, some actual thought.

    buffer overflows, heap overflows, double frees', one byte overflows/frame
    pointer overwrite, integer overflows; If you fall afoul to any of these,
    that is the problem of the bloody careless programmer, not the language.

    ``Geodesic claims 99% of all PC programs (most written in C and C++ of
    course) have memory leaks, all caused by poor use of malloc() and free().''

    And of what percentage is this done by the careless programmer? I wouldn't
    be surprised if careless programmers counted for the majority. But he just
    fails to hint at that because it wouldn't make his poor point.

    ``Here's a C hint that will improve your job security: embrace double
    indirection. Even better, try triple. Real programmers use quadruple. The
    only limit to the number of asterisks placed in front of a pointer is the
    size of one's cojones or how adventurous you feel. ''

    Another poor criticism. Again, who would use excessive indirection
    constantly? If not for an ioccc entry then I would say a beginner. But then,
    the only people fooled by this article would be beginners of C.

    ``Even something as simple as integer math produces unexpected results:
    20,000 + 20,000 is (ta-da) a negative number. Is this cool or what! ''

    He could achieve proper results with the 'U' suffix to denote an integer
    constant of unsigned int, is that cool or what! But whose fault is that?
    Certainly not the language's.

    ``C has no formatting rules. It's easy and usual to write source in
    astonishingly cryptic ways. Any language that allows utterly random use of
    the ENTER key (it's perfectly legit to hit ENTER after almost every
    character in C) is more an encryption tool than an aid to creating reliable
    and maintainable code. ''

    You would have to be a complete retard to not be able to format your code
    correctly. This is _another_ poor criticism.

    ``No other language has an obfuscated code contest. Win by writing code that
    works but that's so convoluted no C expert can understand why. Most of the
    entries look like a two year old hit a few thousand random keys. And no, I'm
    not putting the URL of the contest here; these people are code terrorists
    who should be hunted down and shot. ''

    Complete drivel. These contests are done only for fun. No serious
    applications are being developed.

    ``A great programming language should encourage users to create perfect
    code.''

    He should define ``perfect''. This of course is something based on ones
    ideological reasoning.
    I personally think one can achieve ``perfect''(robust, flawless) code in C
    by undertsanding its pitfalls.
    j, Oct 20, 2003
    #10
  11. Fao, Sean

    jacob navia Guest

    "Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:bmv3hi$qar$...
    > There's a case for garbage collection, but why not just use C++ and the
    > standard template library if you want a higher-level langauge?


    Because C++ suffers from obesity. Too complex for a human mind.
    There is no 100% compliant compiler for C++ besides Comeau C++ and the
    EDG front end.
    jacob navia, Oct 20, 2003
    #11
  12. Fao, Sean

    James Antill Guest

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:51:35 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

    > You have to limit what the programmer can do to avoid mistakes. This is a bad conclusion from real
    > facts like the difficulty of using correctly malloc and free.
    >
    > I proposed garbage collection as the means of solving this. GC allows you to avoid
    > malloc and free. See http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32.


    Boehm GC has been around a _long_ time for C programs that want it.

    > Another real fact is the primitive string type in C and the absence of bounds
    > checking of arrays, specially strings. The use of a bounded array type is long
    > overdue and C will continue to have critics that will point out this defficiency in the
    > language as long as no solution is proposed by the standard.
    >
    > It is a pity that we go on with a badly conceived data type. Bounded strings would
    > be really a bonus for the language. We are in the final phase of releasing a string
    > package for the above implementation.


    Oh, another one. See http://www.and.org/vstr/comparison.html ... I'm
    pretty sure your implementation has been tried and tested before.

    > Bounded strings are much faster than traditional strings. The strlen() function
    > is just a memory read: you just access the "size" field.
    >
    > Other functions like strcat and others can be implemented *much* faster and
    > without any buffer overflows.
    >
    > The whole package is easier to do with the garbage collector.


    I doubt that, I have implemented (and many others have too) a nice string
    API without having to resort to not implement resource deallocation.

    --
    James Antill --
    Need an efficient and powerful string library for C?
    http://www.and.org/vstr/
    James Antill, Oct 20, 2003
    #12
  13. On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Fao, Sean wrote:

    > > Statistics show that 98.7 percent of all statistics
    > > are made up.

    > Is this one of them? ;-)


    Sounds quite credible to me. Besides, a quick googling shows that
    the survey has even been performed several times:

    "42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot"
    "78 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot"
    "73 percent of all statistics are made up."
    "78.6 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot."
    "83 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot."
    "47.62 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot?"
    "88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot"
    "33% of statistics are made up"
    Jarno A Wuolijoki, Oct 20, 2003
    #13
  14. Fao, Sean

    Morris Dovey Guest

    Fao, Sean wrote:

    > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C
    > language and I was shocked to see the number of supporters for
    > the author. I also find it hard to believe that 99% of all
    > code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I could be wrong.


    Jack Ganssle wrote:

    "A great programming language should encourage users to create
    perfect code. It must bound our options, limit our freedom,
    remove the degrees of freedom that lead to stupid bugs."

    Mr Ganssle presents an interesting viewpoint. I was attracted to
    C precisely because I saw the language as a tool that would
    expand my options and set me free to explore new solution
    methodologies /without/ having to spend 90% of my time and effort
    defeating the 'safeguards' that prevented getting the job done.
    I've continued using the language because it has been the best
    (for project- and task-specific definitions of /best/) for nearly
    all of my projects for more than twenty years.

    If Mr. Ganssle has a need for a language with Ada-like
    characteristics, then he should probably /use/ Ada to satisfy his
    needs. To me his complaints are comparable to a whining about how
    his cat doesn't bark when there's a stranger at the door.

    [Sorry, Jack - stupidity hath no remedy.]
    --
    Morris Dovey
    West Des Moines, Iowa USA
    C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
    Morris Dovey, Oct 20, 2003
    #14
  15. "Fao, Sean" <-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote:

    >Joe Wright wrote:
    >
    >> Statistics show that 98.7 percent of all statistics
    >> are made up.

    >
    >Is this one of them? ;-)


    Nope, it's one of the other 21.3 percent that are just wrong. ;-)

    --
    Irrwahn
    ()
    Irrwahn Grausewitz, Oct 20, 2003
    #15
  16. Fao, Sean

    pete Guest

    j wrote:
    >
    > "Fao, Sean" <-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
    > news:9vBkb.111804$...
    > > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language


    > ``Even something as simple as integer math produces unexpected
    > results: 20,000 + 20,000 is (ta-da) a negative number.
    > Is this cool or what! ''


    (20000 + 20000) is not a portable expression.
    If it looks negative, then it's undefined.

    > He could achieve proper results with the 'U' suffix to
    > denote an integer constant of unsigned int, is that cool or what!


    .... or even the 'L' suffix, if he wants a signed type.

    Choosing types with enough precission
    to hold the results of operations,
    is not an advanced topic in C.

    --
    pete
    pete, Oct 20, 2003
    #16
  17. Fao, Sean

    Sam Hobbs Guest

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:21:41 GMT, "Fao, Sean"
    <-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote:

    >A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    >was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author.  I also find it
    >hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    >could be wrong.
    >


    The guy is Jack Ganssle. Pretty well respected in the area of embedded
    programming.

    Interesting to note that he says among other things:
    ". . . I do like programming in C."
    and does not mean it facetiously.

    Even the article title: "My Love-Hate Relationship with C" indicates
    that he is not opposed to the language.

    Also interesting to note that it is not Jack who claims that 99% of
    programs have memory leaks, but a company which sells software to help
    with such things as memory leaks.

    As for the number of people who "agreed" with him, SO WHAT. Surely we
    all know that there are lots of people out there who don't like the
    features of C -- some of them even offered their own ideas in this
    thread.

    Sam
    Sam Hobbs, Oct 20, 2003
    #17
  18. Fao, Sean

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <9vBkb.111804$> "Fao, Sean" <-WANT-NO-SPAM> writes:

    >A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language and I
    >was shocked to see the number of supporters for the author.  I also find it
    >hard to believe that 99% of all code has memory leaks; but, I suppose I
    >could be wrong.
    >
    >See what you think:
    >
    >http://www.embedded.com
    >showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DOBHEJ2YZUKUQSNDBCSKHQ?articleID=15306089


    The guy didn't understand a very simple thing: both the strength and the
    weakness of the language come from the fact that it was designed to
    provide a *thin* abstraction layer over the bare metal. If you want/need
    a thicker layer, choosing C is a mistake. That's why nobody's going to
    change the fundamental design of C. If you need Ada, use Ada.

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
    Dan Pop, Oct 20, 2003
    #18
  19. On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, pete wrote:
    >
    > j wrote:
    > >
    > > Sean Fao wrote...
    > > > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language

    >
    > > ``Even something as simple as integer math produces unexpected
    > > results: 20,000 + 20,000 is (ta-da) a negative number.
    > > Is this cool or what! ''

    >
    > (20000 + 20000) is not a portable expression.
    > If it looks negative, then it's undefined.


    Not at all.

    if( (20,000 + 20,000) == (-7,000) )
    puts("C sucks!");

    ;-)

    -Arthur
    Arthur J. O'Dwyer, Oct 20, 2003
    #19
  20. Fao, Sean

    Joe Wright Guest

    Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:
    >
    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, pete wrote:
    > >
    > > j wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Sean Fao wrote...
    > > > > A guy at http://www.embedded.com gave his opinion on the C language

    > >
    > > > ``Even something as simple as integer math produces unexpected
    > > > results: 20,000 + 20,000 is (ta-da) a negative number.
    > > > Is this cool or what! ''

    > >
    > > (20000 + 20000) is not a portable expression.
    > > If it looks negative, then it's undefined.

    >
    > Not at all.
    >
    > if( (20,000 + 20,000) == (-7,000) )
    > puts("C sucks!");
    >
    > ;-)
    >

    What do you suppose those commas will do? Did you know that ajo is
    Spanish for garlic?

    --
    Joe Wright http://www.jw-wright.com
    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
    --- Albert Einstein ---
    Joe Wright, Oct 20, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vince C.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,225
    Vince C.
    Jul 3, 2003
  2. Mark Reed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    394
    Stewart Gordon
    Jan 20, 2005
  3. cody
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    292
    David Rubin
    Oct 15, 2003
  4. Fao, Sean

    An authors view on C

    Fao, Sean, Oct 19, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    317
    Mike Wahler
    Oct 20, 2003
  5. Parthiv Joshi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    669
    Samuel L Matzen
    Jul 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page