Shut Down This Obsolete Newsgroup

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Ekoj LoofLirpa, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
    the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.

    I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
    easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory leaks?
    That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
    like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented langage.
    And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean a
    real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that C#
    is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C -- blech!


    Love,

    Ekoj Looflirpa
     
    Ekoj LoofLirpa, Apr 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Alan Balmer Guest

    On 1 Apr 2005 06:28:23 -0800, "Ekoj LoofLirpa" <>
    wrote:

    >C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    >1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    >world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    >attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
    >the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
    >
    >I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
    >easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory leaks?
    >That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
    >like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented langage.
    >And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean a
    >real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that C#
    >is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C -- blech!
    >

    Somebody found a stupid mistake in your program, eh?

    --
    Al Balmer
    Balmer Consulting
     
    Alan Balmer, Apr 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    jacob navia Guest

    Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
    > C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    > 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    > world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    > attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
    > the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
    >
    > I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
    > easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory leaks?
    > That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
    > like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented langage.
    > And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean a
    > real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that C#
    > is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C -- blech!
    >
    >
    > Love,
    >
    > Ekoj Looflirpa
    >


    Yes. I have followed your advice IMMEDIATELY. You are 100% RIGHT.

    I bought Delphi (just a bit over US$ 1000). That is a professional
    object oriented language, that comes with a .NET version at the latest
    fad level.

    After installing it, and several days to clear license issues, I got
    started with it.

    I clicked in the icon of the compiler, (excuse me, IDE), I saw a popup
    window after 10 seconds, and then...

    Well then I learned how good is to have some time to REFLECT what I am
    doing, for a change. It took Delphi 2005 1 minute and half to start and
    open a small project.

    Of course this is due to my old machine, a slow AMD 64 bit with just
    a GIG of RAM. I should buy a new one of course:

    "We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages" you say. I would
    say the same of old fashioned 64 bit hardware. Let's buy the 256 bit AMD
    2009.

    But back to Delphi. I started typing code but.... Ahhh the editor
    couldn't keep with my typing. I know I type fast, and I like this
    feature:

    You type, and then you wait, without seeing what you typed, 4-6 seconds
    until Delphi catches up. I was used to this from MSDOS, when some
    editors swapped and swapped to fit all my document in a 20K buffer.

    Welcome to the future! It looks increasingly like the past, but never
    mind.

    According to most people, the speed of .NET is approx 1 tenth of what
    raw machine code provides. And C is raw machine code. It is true, a
    string type is sorely needed in C but... a 10 times performance
    loss?????

    Why can't Delphi catch up with the typing???

    Because this is progress man. The latest fad, the latest development in
    language research.

    Make the language as inefficient as possible so that the customer
    buys new hardware to keep up with the bloat.

    I compiled a hellowin demo program that in lcc-win32 makes 4K with the
    latest version of Visual Studio 64 bits.

    It produced a 532K (yes, half a megabyte) program. And the program would
    not start, because the embedded manifest was not correctly generated...

    Progress, progress.

    Bloat is to be avoided, the people in this group agree. We do not agree
    in anything else but at least that, we agree: bloat is to be avoided,
    program efficiency is important.

    That's why we stick to C you see?

    Thanks for your advise anyway.

    jacob
     
    jacob navia, Apr 1, 2005
    #3
  4. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    "Ekoj LoofLirpa" <> writes:

    > C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    > 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    > world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    > attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
    > the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.


    You probably think this is an April Fools posting, but in fact
    c.l.c gets suggestions like this on a regular basis.
    --
    "You call this a *C* question? What the hell are you smoking?" --Kaz
     
    Ben Pfaff, Apr 1, 2005
    #4
  5. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
    > C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    > 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    > world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    > attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
    > the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
    >
    > I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
    > easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory

    leaks?
    > That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
    > like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented

    langage.
    > And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean

    a
    > real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that

    C#
    > is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C --

    blech!
    >
    >
    > Love,
    >
    > Ekoj Looflirpa


    Dammit, you *had me* for about 15 minutes. Here I'd gone and written
    an impassioned defense of the purity of C in the face of heretical,
    labor-saving languages like C#, and then I realized what I was
    responding to.

    *Bastard* :p~~~
     
    , Apr 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    -berlin.de Guest

    wrote:

    > Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
    >> C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    >> 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    >> world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    >> attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
    >> the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
    >>
    >> I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it so
    >> easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory

    > leaks?
    >> That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages
    >> like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented

    > langage.
    >> And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I mean

    > a
    >> real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that

    > C#
    >> is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C --

    > blech!
    >>
    >>
    >> Love,
    >>
    >> Ekoj Looflirpa


    > Dammit, you *had me* for about 15 minutes. Here I'd gone and written
    > an impassioned defense of the purity of C in the face of heretical,
    > labor-saving languages like C#, and then I realized what I was
    > responding to.


    But he's completely right! I am, for example, lobbying since years for
    the abolishment of knives and forks. They are so last-millenium and
    dangerous to use (do you realize how many people each year get hurt
    severely by improper use of forks, not even taking knives into account
    - what a burden to our struggling economies), and with the advent of
    modern and powerful food-processing machines, that easily will convert
    a dinner into mush, nobody needs them anymore. Since people usually
    don't drink enough anyway, after adding a bit of water, all you then
    need is a straw to ingest your tasty dinner, even cutting out the need
    for spoons, which also can be rather dangerous if not used with utter
    care (if you have a loved one who pricked out an eye with the pointy
    end of a spoon you will know what I am talking about, it happens all
    too often).
    Regards, Jens
    --
    \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ -berlin.de
    \__________________________ http://www.toerring.de
     
    -berlin.de, Apr 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:39:25 -0800, Ben Pfaff <> wrote:

    >"Ekoj LoofLirpa" <> writes:
    >
    >> C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    >> 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    >> world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    >> attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this is
    >> the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.

    >
    >You probably think this is an April Fools posting, but in fact
    >c.l.c gets suggestions like this on a regular basis.


    I can believe it. People do get caught up in stuff and often this amounts
    to selecting form over function. (I especially love the one about the
    Jaguar owner who ends up buying a used Toyota to get around in while the
    Jag's in the shop.)

    OOP is not better than functional or procedural approaches, it's slower and
    much more complicated. But it is more popular because one can drop classes
    in like building blocks (like you can't do that with a good library of
    subroutines?).

    RAD is the cause of most of the bloat out there but programmers on deadlines
    like the way it impresses the boss.

    These aren't improvements... they're form over function marketing tactics.

    C may be an old language, and it probably should be updated to include a
    true string type, but it is still one of the most powerful and machine
    compatible languages out there. Modern computers may be faster and smarter,
    but they still work essentially the same way as computers did when C was
    created. C is still around because the same basic computer architecture is
    still around. CPUs don't understand Objects and Classes... they understand
    sequential execution, subroutines and interrupts... i.e. they understand C.
    That's the key to C's longevity, C programming structure has a 1 to 1
    correlation with the way CPUs work. (The only way to get closer is ASM and
    I wouldn't wish a big assembler project on my worst enemy. [grin])

    Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...

    I started out programming in Pascal way back in the late 70s. Moved to
    turbo pascal when PCs came out and then, after an interregnum where I played
    at being a hardware geek, I purchased Delphi which was touted as the newest
    and best programming language on the planet. (Yes, I know Delphi is
    actually an application written in Object Pascal.)

    After producing a number of small utilities (learning curve stuff) that
    turned out to be huge --really freaking huge-- I began to question the
    language. Eventually I dug the object pascal underpinnings out of Delphi
    and began working in that, producing smaller and far more efficient
    programs...

    Until, that is, I discovered this...

    Program ohno;
    {$apptype console}

    // uses sysutils;

    var a,b,c : integer;

    begin
    a = 1;
    b = 0;

    Try
    c = a / b;
    Except
    writeln('I snagged an exception');

    end.

    Every Delphi programmer should test this simple program. Note that the
    division by 0 exception is NOT caught unless you un-comment the "uses
    sysutils" line. And when you do un-comment that line your program grows by
    nearly 30k (the entire object and class mechanisms have to be fully
    initialized to handle the exception).

    When writing programs in Delphi entire *keywords* of the language shut down
    if you don't include certain units ("sysutils", in the example above).

    Ever wondered why the Delphi IDE auto-includes so many units when you start
    a new project? This is why. Core language functionality implemented upon
    classes and objects in user loaded libraries. And don't even get me started
    on their memory manager...

    And were's the warning about this? Does it produce a syntax error? Is there
    a compiler warning? Nope. The caution exists only as a softly worded note
    in the back pages of a help file... AND Borland has said this is "acceptable
    behaviour".

    Lets face it... Any language that relies upon user loaded libraries for it's
    core functionality is *deeply* flawed. One has to wonder how many Delphi
    programs are out there with this nasty little bugg(er) alive and kicking.

    I'm working in C now...
    Found an implementation I really like...
    I think I'll stick with it for a decade or three.
     
    , Apr 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guillaume Guest

    Alan Balmer wrote:
    > Somebody found a stupid mistake in your program, eh?


    Funny, that's exactly what I thought too.

    But the whole thing looks clearly like an April's fool.
    Heck, he even signed his "note" with "Love,"... mwahahaha
     
    Guillaume, Apr 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    jacob navia Guest

    wrote:
    > Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...
    >


    Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
    (as I did) Delphi 2005.

    I guess you will not be surprised.

    jacob
     
    jacob navia, Apr 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Default User Guest

    Ben Pfaff wrote:
    > "Ekoj LoofLirpa" <> writes:
    >
    > > C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    > > 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    > > world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    > > attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this

    is
    > > the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.

    >
    > You probably think this is an April Fools posting, but in fact
    > c.l.c gets suggestions like this on a regular basis.


    I probably am sure it is a joke, at least based on the poster's name.

    We do indeed get ones of the "y do u use C when C# is da bom" sort.
    Even more frequent are the ones that aren't posted as flamebait, but
    occur offhand in groups, like, "there's no new development in C, it's
    all just maintenance at this point."


    Brian
     
    Default User, Apr 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:40:10 +0200, jacob navia <>
    wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...
    >>

    >
    >Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
    >(as I did) Delphi 2005.
    >
    >I guess you will not be surprised.


    [grin] not at all.

    By the way... that flaw I pointed out is not a joke. It's a timebomb
    waiting to go off in a lot of Delphi software.
     
    , Apr 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    CBFalconer Guest

    wrote:
    > jacob navia <> wrote:
    > > wrote:

    >
    >>> Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable
    >>> language...

    >>
    >> Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
    >> (as I did) Delphi 2005.
    >>
    >>I guess you will not be surprised.

    >
    > [grin] not at all.
    >
    > By the way... that flaw I pointed out is not a joke. It's a
    > timebomb waiting to go off in a lot of Delphi software.


    They don't even try to call it Pascal anymore. Borland has done a
    great deal of harm to the Pascal language by ignoring the
    standards. At least they have only ignored one standard, while
    Microsoft ignores all.

    --
    Some useful references about C:
    <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
    <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    <http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
    <http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
    <http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
    <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)
     
    CBFalconer, Apr 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:41:15 GMT, CBFalconer <> wrote:

    >They don't even try to call it Pascal anymore. Borland has done a
    >great deal of harm to the Pascal language by ignoring the
    >standards. At least they have only ignored one standard, while
    >Microsoft ignores all.


    Ok, Charles, is it? For the sake of clarity...

    I really don't care a rats behind about standards, portability or style.

    Nobody will ever have to read my code, except me. It will never be ported
    to anything but windows. And, if there is a new version of windows, it will
    be me doing the rewrite.

    I do however care what works and what doesn't.

    You can't program in a faulty language.
     
    , Apr 2, 2005
    #13
  14. In article <>, <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:40:10 +0200, jacob navia <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>> Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...
    >>>

    >>
    >>Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
    >>(as I did) Delphi 2005.
    >>
    >>I guess you will not be surprised.

    >
    >[grin] not at all.
    >
    >By the way... that flaw I pointed out is not a joke. It's a timebomb
    >waiting to go off in a lot of Delphi software.


    This is very interesting. I know very little about Delphi (having
    programmed in it just a little, and long ago), but I know a lot about
    a suite of applications that are written in Delphi. And you know what?
    This "soft fail" that you describe is one of the key attributes of this
    application suite. By "soft fail", I mean that the thing just quietly
    doesn't work (i.e., with no error message) because some little detail
    hasn't been attended to.

    One of my cherished beliefs is that applications often take on the
    attributes of the underlying language or toolkit in which they are
    implemented. Things written in C, tend to be C-like. Things written in
    Delphi tend to be Delphi-like.
     
    Kenny McCormack, Apr 2, 2005
    #14
  15. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    Ok.. off topic but...

    On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 04:30:54 GMT, (Kenny
    McCormack) wrote:
    >This is very interesting. I know very little about Delphi (having
    >programmed in it just a little, and long ago), but I know a lot about
    >a suite of applications that are written in Delphi. And you know what?
    >This "soft fail" that you describe is one of the key attributes of this
    >application suite. By "soft fail", I mean that the thing just quietly
    >doesn't work (i.e., with no error message) because some little detail
    >hasn't been attended to.


    Could well be... Check in any unit that uses Try/Except or Try/Finally make
    sure SYSUTILS is in the "Uses" list... Same with any place an external
    memory manager is used (and it's fairly common in Delphi) and be sure that
    both Sysutils and Sharemem are included.


    >One of my cherished beliefs is that applications often take on the
    >attributes of the underlying language or toolkit in which they are
    >implemented. Things written in C, tend to be C-like. Things written in
    >Delphi tend to be Delphi-like.


    Hmmmm... I do try to avoid that, but you may have a point.

    I use Pelles C ... a nice implementation for Win32 and CE (although I only
    use the Win32 stuff). I just finished a bunch of libraries of wayyyyy
    off-standard code to make getting along with disk files easier. I wonder
    how much my code is going to be influenced by using these libs.
     
    , Apr 2, 2005
    #15
  16. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    CBFalconer Guest

    wrote:
    > CBFalconer <> wrote:
    >
    >> They don't even try to call it Pascal anymore. Borland has done a
    >> great deal of harm to the Pascal language by ignoring the
    >> standards. At least they have only ignored one standard, while
    >> Microsoft ignores all.

    >
    > Ok, Charles, is it? For the sake of clarity...
    >
    > I really don't care a rats behind about standards, portability or
    > style. Nobody will ever have to read my code, except me. It will
    > never be ported to anything but windows. And, if there is a new
    > version of windows, it will be me doing the rewrite.
    >
    > I do however care what works and what doesn't.
    >
    > You can't program in a faulty language.


    You don't know what you are missing. You can get the semantics,
    but not the full language, of Pascal with Turbo/Borland with my
    TXTFILES unit. I believe it works with all of them, and will give
    you much better interactive operation. Available at:

    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/download/txtfiles.zip>

    --
    Some useful references about C:
    <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
    <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    <http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
    <http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
    <http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
    <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)
     
    CBFalconer, Apr 2, 2005
    #16
  17. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 05:55:38 GMT, CBFalconer <> wrote:

    >You don't know what you are missing.


    Yes I do... that's why I've switched to C.
     
    , Apr 2, 2005
    #17
  18. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Bill C Guest

    Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
    >
    > Love,
    >
    > Ekoj Looflirpa


    Good one!

    I love Ekoj => jokE(s) too...

    Bill C.
     
    Bill C, Apr 2, 2005
    #18
  19. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    I agree with some of your points (bloated exe size, slow/buggy ide),
    but Delphi overall isn't so bad for making win32 client applications.
    At least versions 5 and 7, I can't say I've tried the 2005 version.
    First of all the VCL is a decent framework, second the code produced by
    the compiler gives fast performance, often times comparable to c. And
    much faster than the open source object pascal compilers.
    (http://dada.perl.it/shootout/)

    As for the drag and drop components, I can't say I use them that often,
    but they do come in handy at times. For the most part I use Delphi as
    an object pascal compiler + win32 framework, and it is good for this
    purpose.

    jacob navia wrote:
    > Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
    > > C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
    > > 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
    > > world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
    > > attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this

    is
    > > the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
    > >
    > > I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it

    so
    > > easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory

    leaks?
    > > That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete

    languages
    > > like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented

    langage.
    > > And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I

    mean a
    > > real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that

    C#
    > > is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C --

    blech!
    > >
    > >
    > > Love,
    > >
    > > Ekoj Looflirpa
    > >

    >
    > Yes. I have followed your advice IMMEDIATELY. You are 100% RIGHT.
    >
    > I bought Delphi (just a bit over US$ 1000). That is a professional
    > object oriented language, that comes with a .NET version at the

    latest
    > fad level.
    >
    > After installing it, and several days to clear license issues, I got
    > started with it.
    >
    > I clicked in the icon of the compiler, (excuse me, IDE), I saw a

    popup
    > window after 10 seconds, and then...
    >
    > Well then I learned how good is to have some time to REFLECT what I

    am
    > doing, for a change. It took Delphi 2005 1 minute and half to start

    and
    > open a small project.
    >
    > Of course this is due to my old machine, a slow AMD 64 bit with just
    > a GIG of RAM. I should buy a new one of course:
    >
    > "We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages" you say. I

    would
    > say the same of old fashioned 64 bit hardware. Let's buy the 256 bit

    AMD
    > 2009.
    >
    > But back to Delphi. I started typing code but.... Ahhh the editor
    > couldn't keep with my typing. I know I type fast, and I like this
    > feature:
    >
    > You type, and then you wait, without seeing what you typed, 4-6

    seconds
    > until Delphi catches up. I was used to this from MSDOS, when some
    > editors swapped and swapped to fit all my document in a 20K buffer.
    >
    > Welcome to the future! It looks increasingly like the past, but never
    > mind.
    >
    > According to most people, the speed of .NET is approx 1 tenth of what
    > raw machine code provides. And C is raw machine code. It is true, a
    > string type is sorely needed in C but... a 10 times performance
    > loss?????
    >
    > Why can't Delphi catch up with the typing???
    >
    > Because this is progress man. The latest fad, the latest development

    in
    > language research.
    >
    > Make the language as inefficient as possible so that the customer
    > buys new hardware to keep up with the bloat.
    >
    > I compiled a hellowin demo program that in lcc-win32 makes 4K with

    the
    > latest version of Visual Studio 64 bits.
    >
    > It produced a 532K (yes, half a megabyte) program. And the program

    would
    > not start, because the embedded manifest was not correctly

    generated...
    >
    > Progress, progress.
    >
    > Bloat is to be avoided, the people in this group agree. We do not

    agree
    > in anything else but at least that, we agree: bloat is to be avoided,
    > program efficiency is important.
    >
    > That's why we stick to C you see?
    >
    > Thanks for your advise anyway.
    >
    > jacob
     
    , Apr 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Ekoj LoofLirpa

    Guest

    On 3 Apr 2005 14:21:42 -0700, wrote:

    >As for the drag and drop components, I can't say I use them that often,
    >but they do come in handy at times. For the most part I use Delphi as
    >an object pascal compiler + win32 framework, and it is good for this
    >purpose.


    Off topic, i know...

    However, if you are using only the Object Pascal parts of Delphi, please
    take note of my warning about keyword shutdown in another message. It's no
    joke... and it can seriously sabotage your programs as they will continue
    running with whole portions simply bypassed...
     
    , Apr 3, 2005
    #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. Anders Both

    Shut down of asp.net process.

    Anders Both, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    642
    Hermit Dave
    Jan 13, 2004
  2. Michael Persaud

    Shut Down Machine

    Michael Persaud, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    490
    George Ter-Saakov
    Jan 22, 2004
  3. Bruce W.1
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    407
    Hans Kesting
    Jan 27, 2004
  4. Ken Kolda
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    491
    Ken Kolda
    May 7, 2004
  5. Steve
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    468
    Steve
    Jan 31, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page