Making C better (by borrowing from C++)

U

user923005

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

[...]

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

Maybe it should be "defecate". Seems odd that they could not just
make fopen() work safely in the first place.
 
H

Harald van Dijk

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

:)

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

Kenny McCormack

I'd be more than happy to obey a moratorium on all politically charged
discussions; but the starting point of that in this case would have
been to use some metaphor with fewer violent connotations than
"Taleban" to describe C fundamentalists.

Or you guys could all just lighten up. I mean, think of the term "nazi".
Surely, in historical perspective, this is every bit as evil (many would
say, much more so) as the Taliban. Nevertheless, Godwin aside, we do
use the word "nazi" in everyday speech to refer to a certain sort of
authoritarian personality type, without people bringing up the death
camps and so on. Example: Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi".
 
F

Flash Gordon

Chris Hills wrote, On 28/12/07 18:50:
Yes it does.. Completely. I don't want to release any of my source
under any circumstances.

You don't have to release the source code of anything you build with
gcc. You can also modify gcc and not release your modified sources if
you do not distribute your modified gcc just the SW you build with it.

The gcc licence does restrict you in that you cannot modify gcc and
distribute the modified version without making the source of your
modifications available, but that is not something that would affect
most developers, not even most developers of commercial closed source
applications.
 
J

jacob navia

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

You can't embed gcc's source code in your application to generate
dynamically C code and execute it on the fly.

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

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

In general the source code of gcc is 10 times bigger than
the source of gcc. It doesn't help you that the source is
freely available since it is impossible to understand
because of its sheer complexity. Lcc-win code is 80% of the
speed of gcc, with only 10% of the source code, mainly because
lcc doesn't support C++.
 
H

Harald van Dijk

You can't embed gcc's source code in your application to generate
dynamically C code and execute it on the fly.

This is not entirely true, and regardless, this appears to be no better
in lcc-win32.
You can't embed gcc into your application to compile dynamically c code
into a dll/shared object

This is not entirely true, and regardless, this appears to be no better
in lcc-win32.
You can't use gcc as a back end for your proprietary language, mainly
because it is too slow, but also too complex to adapt and modify.

This has nothing to do with the license.
In general the source code of gcc is 10 times bigger than the source of
gcc.

This has nothing to do with the license.

Okay, so this wasn't one of the times where drawing attention to your
compiler was a good idea. I should've emphasised the "if" in my previous
post. Unless there's a case where gcc's license forbids the same action
that *is* possible legally with your compiler, you shouldn't bring it up
here, and instead stick with where and when it's topical.
 
C

CBFalconer

user923005 said:
Keith Thompson said:
Chris Hills said:
The problem is that now the MS library is "official" they have
started to use official words like "depreciate" for anything
else. This just shows that a company in MS's position can
subvert the standards process.

[...]

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

Maybe it should be "defecate". Seems odd that they could not just
make fopen() work safely in the first place.

In a way we are lucky. MS likes to push its name to the forefront
at all times, so we probably won't get MS FUD without at least
hints as to the origin. This makes it easier to ignore.
 
D

Default User

Every step along the way, the "Taleban" aspect of this thread has been
off-topic.

Which is why I killfiled that person immediately, and resisted any
temptation to hit the bait.
I'd be more than happy to obey a moratorium on all politically charged
discussions; but the starting point of that in this case would have
been to use some metaphor with fewer violent connotations than
"Taleban" to describe C fundamentalists.

"He started it!" The oldest excuse around. That gives you no reason to
escalate.



Brian
 
C

Chris Hills

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

Try some where on in N. America......
I
would be hard put to find anybody that even got annoyed at a 'Yank'
appellation. If a name doesn't annoy those whom it describes, can
it possibly be considered insulting? Do you get hot under the
collar when described as 'English' or 'British'?

No.. Nor Limey or anything else for that matter.
 
C

Chris Hills

Chris Hills said:
Try some where on in N. America......

Sorry... Somewhere NOT in N. America. Come to that try calling a
Canadian a "Yank" :)

Most Americans don't have a problem with it. (Though I think some
Southern ones would be less pleased)

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

In thins case the word Taliban was used to describe a religious fanatic
(much as they were when the US funded and trained them) Zellot would
have been equally applicable and possibly less contentious.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Chris Hills said:
However in other parts of the world being associated with the Taliban
is great praise and suggesting they are a "yank" would be a major
insult.
[snip]

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

David Laudedale

David Laudedale wrote:




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

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

Regards
David
 
R

Richard Heathfield

David Laudedale said:
I owe an apology to no one.
Wrong.

James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup

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

No, as a responsible Usenetter, your duty was not to rise to troll-bait.
This newsgroup discusses C, not local politics.

<snip>
 
R

Richard

Richard Heathfield said:
David Laudedale said:


Wrong.

Wrong. He owes you sweet FA.
No, he wasn't. Masmood was. You have been trolled, and so has James.

As have you.
No, as a responsible Usenetter, your duty was not to rise to troll-bait.
This newsgroup discusses C, not local politics.

And you are doing what?
 
M

merl the perl

Keith Thompson said:
Chris Hills said:
However in other parts of the world being associated with the Taliban
is great praise and suggesting they are a "yank" would be a major
insult.
[snip]

Chris, I know you've advocated broadening the topicality guidelines
for comp.lang.c, but this is ridiculous. Perhaps this thread would be
topical in alt.beat.dead.horse.
I've been reading clc all night, as it is, for me, output:
date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:13:09 +0000 (UTC)time is
1198923189from is
(e-mail address removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007
09:53:11 +0000 (UTC)time is
1198921991from is
"Joachim Schmitz" <[email protected]>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007
09:22:20 +0000 (UTC)time is
1198920140from is
tropics <[email protected]>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:19:20 +0000
(UTC)time is
1198919960from is
James Fang <[email protected]>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007
03:14:50 -0600time is
1198919690from is
"Malcolm McLean" <[email protected]>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:57:29
+0000 (UTC)time is
1198918649from is
Chris Hills <[email protected]>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:51:13 -0600time
is
1198918273from is
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]>date is Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:27:27
+0000 (UTC)time is

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

One other thing: why don't you show up on my radar like everyone else?
 
K

Kenny McCormack

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

You're so funny. Just adorable. You go, girl!
In point of fact, a clear majority of Americans are 100% behind the
President that they freely and democratically elected.

If, by "a clear majority", you mean "about 25%" (GWB's current approval
ratings - the lowest in history - lower even than Nixon just before he
resigned).
 
C

Chris Hills

I would have posted the following as a private email but you use a false
email address.

David Laudedale said:
I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup -

Actually it was you who did the political diatribe.
as a patriotic American,

I think you will find James too is a patriotic American
my duty was to expose the lies
He didn't give any lies... on the other hand you did produce a lot of
propaganda.

I can back this up but not here and you didn't give an email address.
and try to convince the world that not all Americans hate our country
and have contempt for our troops.

I think he has contempt for GWB (as does most of the world) not the
troops. In the UK 80%+ of the population believe it is an illegal war
but support the troops 100% in theatre.
In point of fact, a clear majority of Americans are 100% behind the
President that they freely and democratically elected.

In clear point of FACT..... The collegiate vote was only just better
than 50/50 in favour of GWB after a few recounts. In fact the
population (on a 1 person 1 vote) did not give GWB a majority at the
time.

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

James Kuyper

David said:
I owe an apology to no one. James Kuyper was the one who introduced a
deliberately offensive and provocative political diatribe into a
technical newsgroup ...

I will respond to you by e-mail, if you're willing to give me a valid
address I can use to reach you. Alternatively, I'll be glad to respond
in a more appropriate forum of your choice. However, this discussion
does not belong here.
 
D

David Laudedale

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




If, by "a clear majority", you mean "about 25%" (GWB's current approval
ratings - the lowest in history - lower even than Nixon just before he
resigned).

It's true that the constant sniping attacks from the liberal MSM have
had some effect on his personal popularity. However, if you asked "How
many Americans support our troops?" then I think the answer would be a
*lot* higher than 25%.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top