C container and persistent library ?

[santosh]

I suspect llothar is not a native English speaker, and is doing
pretty well with the language. The crying shame is the native
speakers who can't use grammar and can't spell.

GCC is probably better than HPUX anyhow. Just guessing, no
experience with HPUX.

I'm surprised that HPUX doesn't come bundled with a C compiler, since
most UNIX systems do.

 

[Ian Collins]

I'm surprised that HPUX doesn't come bundled with a C compiler, since
most UNIX systems do.

Not any more.

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

GCC is probably better than HPUX anyhow. Just guessing, no
experience with HPUX.

You are correct, or at least were at one time. Once we installed gcc,
no one ever went back. (This is 10 years ago--I don't know the current
HPUX situation. I do remember that barely anyone at HP referred to it
as "H-pucks", though. Odd.)

-Beej

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

It wasn't a flame,

Then I apologise for misinterpreting your intent.

I was correcting a word, not the grammar.

I think it could be argued either way, actually, but this isn't really
the place to conduct such a debate.

My
intent was to help the OP with a common English mistake, not flame.

When I was at school, we were told never to precede and with a comma.

When I was at school, we were told that 1 is prime. That doesn't mean I
have to believe it, and I'm sure you'd be the first to agree.

The omission of a comma after 'and' is to do with lists:

"Chris, the other Chris, Steve and Keith are all highly respected
regular contributors to comp.lang.c."

Even there, the comma is optional. If used, it is known as the "Oxford
comma":

"Chris, the other Chris, Steve, and Keith are all highly respected
regular contributors to comp.lang.c."

When 'and' is being used as a conjunction, it often makes sense (but not
always) to use a comma just before it, and I hope this sentence gives
you a good example of that fact.

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer wrote:
.... snip ...

I'm surprised that HPUX doesn't come bundled with a C compiler,
since most UNIX systems do.

2 years before the turn of the century (i.e. 1999) I was
occasionally using an HPUX system. The only compiler supplied was
a K&R 1 (note 1) package.

 

[Flash Gordon]

CBFalconer wrote, On 04/03/07 00:52:

I think there is a strong correlation (among native English
speakers) between correct grammar/spelling, and programming
ability.

It is not a simple thing. Dyslexics tend to be worse at spelling than
the average, and as a result are in lower English sets (where it is
streamed) and so are taught less about English grammar. However,
dyslexics in IT (including programming) tend to be good at it. Of
course, I do not have any studies to back this up just what I have seen.
Also I have and use a spilling chicken to make my spooling look butter
than it is.

 

[Ian Collins]

.... snip ...


I think there is a strong correlation (among native English
speakers) between correct grammar/spelling, and programming
ability.

More likely where and when they went through primary school. I had to
suffer through the English system in the 60s when teaching the basics
was considered too old fashioned to be included in the curriculum.

There might be a strong correlation between grammar/spelling pedantry
and C programming...

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Flash Gordon said:

Also I have and use a spilling chicken to make my spooling look
butter than it is.

I never bother with them. I find them to be a complete waste of time. My
mistpyes are rare and my spelling erers rarererererer, so I don't
really see the point. (That is not to say they are not useful to others
- just not to me.)

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

CBFalconer wrote:

More likely where and when they went through primary school. I had to
suffer through the English system in the 60s

So did I. Er, so what?

 

[matevzb]

I'm surprised that HPUX doesn't come bundled with a C compiler, since
most UNIX systems do.

It does, and it's called "HP-UX bundled C compiler" (it's needed for
kernel recompilation when kernel's parameters change). It's stripped
of all the extras and I'm not even sure it handles ISO properly. IMO,
one is better off installing gcc. The "real thing", "HP C/aC++
Developer's Bundle" used to be good, but slow. Nowadays it's faster
but seems to be plagued with bugs.

 

[llothar]

It wasn't a flame, I was correcting a word, not the grammar. My intent
was to help the OP with a common English mistake, not flame.

When I was at school, we were told never to precede and with a comma.

And my teacher at school told me she never understood where commas
should be set in english. So sometimes im just using the german
rules.

And there/their was a result of posting at 3 o'clock in the morning
after 10 hours of work. But i thought in this newsgroups it's okay if
you speak english and not english++

 

[santosh]

And my teacher at school told me she never understood where commas
should be set in english. So sometimes im just using the german
rules.

And there/their was a result of posting at 3 o'clock in the morning
after 10 hours of work. But i thought in this newsgroups it's okay if
you speak english and not english++

Both english and english++ are unacceptable. However English is.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 04/03/07 08:21:

Flash Gordon said:


I never bother with them. I find them to be a complete waste of time. My
mistpyes are rare and my spelling erers rarererererer, so I don't
really see the point. (That is not to say they are not useful to others
- just not to me.

I agree completely. For some people they are a waste of time, but for me
and some others a decently implemented unobtrusive spelling checker is,
if not essential, at least incredibly useful.

 

[llothar]

It does, and it's called "HP-UX bundled C compiler" (it's needed for

kernel recompilation when kernel's parameters change). It's stripped
of all the extras and I'm not even sure it handles ISO properly. IMO,
one is better off installing gcc. The "real thing", "HP C/aC++
Developer's Bundle" used to be good, but slow. Nowadays it's faster
but seems to be plagued with bugs.

Hmmm. The freeware site that offers prebuild depot files just
announced that they are moving away from compiling them with gcc and
are using HP C/aC++ now. They explicitly mention speed reasons. And if
you look at Linux for PA-RISC they say that you can only expect 50% of
the speed that you get from Linux compared to HP-UX.

It's the news from 13th Nov 2006
http://hpux.connect.org.uk/hppd/new.html

gcc code quality was never good in anything else then ix86/amd64 and
maybe PPC code.

 

[Keith Thompson]

The ruby interpreter comes compiled with HP C compiler, don't want to
run into problems linking HP and GCC executables.
And much more important gcc is generating very slow code, that hurts
on this old PA-RISC machines.

Please don't snip attribution lines (lines of the form
"So-and-so writes:").

 

[Richard Heathfield]

santosh said:

Both english and english++ are unacceptable. However English is.

It's just as well this group discusses C rather than English, santosh,
or I'd have to take issue with your second sentence. As it is, I'm
going to shut up (at least insofar as I find that possible and
convenient).

 

[matevzb]

Hmmm. The freeware site that offers prebuild depot files just
announced that they are moving away from compiling them with gcc and
are using HP C/aC++ now. They explicitly mention speed reasons. And if
you look at Linux for PA-RISC they say that you can only expect 50% of
the speed that you get from Linux compared to HP-UX.

No wonder I'd say, especially after having read the PA-RISC (1.1)
manuals. Anyhow, they seem to be moving away from PA-RISCs, focusing
on IA64.

It's the news from 13th Nov 2006http://hpux.connect.org.uk/hppd/new.html

gcc code quality was never good in anything else then ix86/amd64 and
maybe PPC code.

True, but then it costs nothing. In contrast, paying thousands of
dollars for an entry-class machine and not getting a decent compiler
is, mildly put, extortion.

 

[santosh]

santosh said:



It's just as well this group discusses C rather than English, santosh,
or I'd have to take issue with your second sentence. As it is, I'm
going to shut up (at least insofar as I find that possible and
convenient).

Whoops, you're right! In future, I too will shut up with regard to OT
stuff.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

santosh said:

In future, I too will shut up with regard to OT stuff.

Don't make promises you can't keep.

 

[llothar]

No wonder I'd say, especially after having read the PA-RISC (1.1)

manuals. Anyhow, they seem to be moving away from PA-RISCs, focusing
on IA64.

Yes. But i got my Machine 750 MHz C3700 with 2 GB for only 100 Euro on
EBay.
I like it and it was the first Unix machine where i had no problems
with
my triple head display. Itaniums are still too expensive for me. But i
guess
that gcc is much better on this hardware. Can't believe that SGI is
using
anything else then gcc to compile the linux kernel for there super
computers.
And there speed is important.

True, but then it costs nothing. In contrast, paying thousands of
dollars for an entry-class machine and not getting a decent compiler
is, mildly put, extortion.

Correct. And i forgot that the compiler the provide is K&R.
And i'm not going back to this level, very sure. C90 is the minimum.
So i think i will stay with gcc. Maybe some day i get a second hand
license
to the full HP C compiler - or win in a lottery.