Why Use anything BUT C?
From: Alan Connor (zzzzzz_at_xxx.yyy)
Date: 10/07/03
- Next message: CBFalconer: "Re: [OT] Compile C Code With A CPP Compiler?"
- Previous message: Keith Thompson: "Re: The size of a bitarray??"
- In reply to: Todd Stephens: "Re: Troll Alert: why still use C?"
- Next in thread: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: gswork: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: John Bode: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:59:42 GMT
Greetings to the group. I'm reading the FAQ and K&R and monitoring here,
trying to get a handle on the transition from shell programming to C.
>From what I've read, I honestly don't see the need for anything BUT C
and the simple functionality of the high-level programming provided by
any decent shell. (Okay, a teeny weenie bit of assembly language too :-)
Hope I am not out-of-line here.
By-the-way, is there anyplace I can get the entire FAQ as a tarball or
something?
-- Later, Alan C You can find my email address at the website: contact.html take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
- Next message: CBFalconer: "Re: [OT] Compile C Code With A CPP Compiler?"
- Previous message: Keith Thompson: "Re: The size of a bitarray??"
- In reply to: Todd Stephens: "Re: Troll Alert: why still use C?"
- Next in thread: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Mike Wahler: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: gswork: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Reply: John Bode: "Re: Why Use anything BUT C?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|