W
Wade Ward
My usual server took a dump, and I'm posting through the goople
portal. It's new and slick. Maybe this will improve the quality of
google posters.
message body follows:
us are
looking backwards at a good chunk of the steep learning-curve that is
standard linking, yet none of us knows it all; it's a problem that
penetrates deeply into the nature of finite-state automata. It's so
complicated in C that it requires someone like Jabba the Hut to
explain.
There's a lot of nuance in #defining and #undefining, and I do not
dispute
Keith Thompson's encyclopedic command of the issue. If I did dispute,
he'd
hand me my ass in any technical discussion.
That said, the purple dinosaur will not tolerate talk of how to link
to c++,
windows, or anything remotely more useful than linux, C's ugly red-
headed
stepchild. You can claim that I'm confused about system-specific
stuff and
portability, but I would remind that ISO C, for all its portability,
goes
*nowhere.*
Then you have fortran and perl, which define themselves off of c. I
think
that the reason that Richard Maine--c.l.f.'s answer to Keith--allows
talk of
more varieties in linking traces itself directly to the standard, but
I
don't know. I do know that c-fortran linking must be a calculus else
interop is a pipe dream. Anyways....
portal. It's new and slick. Maybe this will improve the quality of
google posters.
message body follows:
What does the standard say about linking in general? I think most ofCraig Dedo said:
us are
looking backwards at a good chunk of the steep learning-curve that is
standard linking, yet none of us knows it all; it's a problem that
penetrates deeply into the nature of finite-state automata. It's so
complicated in C that it requires someone like Jabba the Hut to
explain.
There's a lot of nuance in #defining and #undefining, and I do not
dispute
Keith Thompson's encyclopedic command of the issue. If I did dispute,
he'd
hand me my ass in any technical discussion.
That said, the purple dinosaur will not tolerate talk of how to link
to c++,
windows, or anything remotely more useful than linux, C's ugly red-
headed
stepchild. You can claim that I'm confused about system-specific
stuff and
portability, but I would remind that ISO C, for all its portability,
goes
*nowhere.*
Then you have fortran and perl, which define themselves off of c. I
think
that the reason that Richard Maine--c.l.f.'s answer to Keith--allows
talk of
more varieties in linking traces itself directly to the standard, but
I
don't know. I do know that c-fortran linking must be a calculus else
interop is a pipe dream. Anyways....