types of 'Open' command

[Andrew Poelstra]

Because MS saw a need for more sophisticated web page functionality
and wanted to corner the market. Just a guess of course.

You mean 'halluncinated' instead of 'saw', right? Because I happily use
lynx (that's what IE drove me to, because Firefox was just too similar).

If there was really a "need" for more sophisticaled web page functionality,
lynx wouldn't exist, now would it?

Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no
large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation
handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.

No, it doesn't. It frequently barfs on code I've written that gcc accepts
(with all warnings set).

Of course, such code usually segfaults, but visual studio shouldn't try
to stop that with cryptic compiler errors. I'm not looking for memory
leaks in code that won't compile.

I'm no MS apologist, but I don't think its sensible to blame a company
for taking commercial decisions. Since when did they become a charity?

Since when did they become Satan?

Your guesses are interesting, but they just aren't cynical enough to be
true.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Andrew Poelstra said:

No, it doesn't. It frequently barfs on code I've written that gcc accepts
(with all warnings set).

Do you have an example of an ISO C program that you would expect the MS
compiler to compile, but which it "barfs" on (bearing in mind the fact that
they don't claim to support C99)?

 

[Ian Collins]

Because MS saw no market need for most of the features, because no
large clients were asking and their combined C and C++ implementation
handled the simple stuff already. Again, just a guess.

Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.

 

[Ian Collins]

You mean 'halluncinated' instead of 'saw', right? Because I happily use
lynx (that's what IE drove me to, because Firefox was just too similar).

If there was really a "need" for more sophisticaled web page functionality,
lynx wouldn't exist, now would it?

Mozilla follows W3C standards, unlike IE. The fact that some MS ideas
find their way into standards, doesn't make the standards invalid. MS
not following the standards they contribute to is another story...

 

[Richard Tobin]

If there was really a "need" for more sophisticaled web page functionality,
lynx wouldn't exist, now would it?

If there was really a need for web pages, the human race would never
have evolved.

-- Richard

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Andrew Poelstra said:


Do you have an example of an ISO C program that you would expect the MS
compiler to compile, but which it "barfs" on (bearing in mind the fact that
they don't claim to support C99)?

Nope. I lost all that code when I formatted the drive for Linux.

I haven't used VC++ in several years, and then it was version 6. It had some
issues with pointers, if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure that I was
attempting to compile C code as C++ as well.

Being as I made a claim that I have no ability to back up, I'd say that this
conversation is over and I was (probably) wrong.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Andrew Poelstra said:

I haven't used VC++ in several years, and then it was version 6. It had
some issues with pointers, if I remember correctly.

I've used Version 6 a heck of a lot, and never once encountered any issues
with pointers. It is quite likely that your code was at fault, I'm afraid.

I'm pretty sure that I
was attempting to compile C code as C++ as well.

And that wouldn't help matters.

Being as I made a claim that I have no ability to back up, I'd say that
this conversation is over and I was (probably) wrong.

Yes, I think that's probably the case (apart from the bit about the
conversation being over - these things tend to rumble on for a little
while, like summer lightning after the main storm).

Oh, talking of which... I've been in London for a few days. On Tuesday, I
was sat at a desk at ground level, by an open window, during a
thunderstorm. There was this almighty, colossal BANG, almost deafening, and
the whole room lit up. A non-trivial pressure wave came through the open
window and ruffled my feathers somewhat (as well as setting off the fire
alarm), and I decided now would be a good time to stand up and duck at the
same time, MOVE, and then turn around at a reasonably safe distance to see
whether the place had been bombed or something.

Up until then, the closest I'd been to a lightning strike was about 120-130
yards (known so precisely because it set a tree alight, so its point of
impact was known). This one, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess it was
within 20-50 yards or so.

The strike fried a microfilter and a router. Not my kit, btw - I use
lightning-rated surge protection for this very reason. And UPS.

 

[Nelu]

Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.

It is my understanding that Windows NT only implemented a minimal set
of requirements to earn POSIX certification.

 

[Ian Collins]

It is my understanding that Windows NT only implemented a minimal set
of requirements to earn POSIX certification.

NT predates C99.

 

[Nelu]

NT predates C99.

I thought that Windows 2000 relied heavily on Windows NT code. Maybe
I'm wrong. Anyway, doesn't Windows 2000 (and XP) have POSIX certification?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.

POSIX is hardly the only reason to want a C99 compiler.

 

[Ian Collins]

POSIX is hardly the only reason to want a C99 compiler.

Did I say it was?

That doesn't detract form the fact that it is /a/ reason.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Did I say it was?

Did I say you said it was?

That doesn't detract form the fact that it is /a/ reason.

True enough (though it's not a reason that would have occurred to me).

Semi-seriously, I suppose I did imply that I thought that you had
implied that that was the only reason. I withdraw the implication.

 

[Ian Collins]

Ian Collins <[email protected]> writes:

[...]

Also windows isn't a POSIX OS, so it doesn't require a C99 compiler.

POSIX is hardly the only reason to want a C99 compiler.

Did I say it was?

Did I say you said it was?

That doesn't detract form the fact that it is /a/ reason.

True enough (though it's not a reason that would have occurred to me).

Semi-seriously, I suppose I did imply that I thought that you had
implied that that was the only reason. I withdraw the implication.

 

[Richard Bos]

Because MS saw a need for more sophisticated web page functionality

Snigger. For values of "sophisticated" equal to "byzantine, top-heavy,
and likely to break - but full of the chrome and blinkenlichten that hoi
polloi like so much".

and wanted to corner the market.

Now _there_ ye'r not wrong.

Richard

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Balderdash. They may merely signify that the programmer
chose to use APIs and interfaces outside the realm of the C
Standard. That is to say, the programmer was employing *more*
knowledge than the C Standard imparts, and is therefore the
very opposite of ignorant.

Uh oh. Now you've stepped in it.

As I've pointed out many times, you're either in the cabal or you're
out. What will the cabal do with you now?