Re: Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead
From: Kenny McCormack (gazelle_at_yin.interaccess.com)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: Malcolm: "Re: ++i vs i++"
- Previous message: Malcolm: "Re: ++i vs i++"
- In reply to: Keith Thompson: "Re: Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead"
- Next in thread: Alan Balmer: "Re: Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead"
- Reply: Alan Balmer: "Re: Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:12:08 GMT
In article <lnacv8g93r.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
...
>>> (including all the server boxes which are really just overgrown PCs)
>>
>> Every server is an 'overgrown PC?' Huh? Even a 390? A VAX?
>
>Note the lack of a comma after "boxes". I think he was referring to
>the subset of server boxes which are "which are really just overgrown
>PCs" (many of them are), not asserting that all server boxes are
>overgrown PCs.
Indeed. I suppose that "that" would have been a better choice of word
than "which". But, still I thought my meaning was perfectly clear.
Interesting, though, how it scans differently if the comma is removed.
>>> running on x86 chips make up a substantial percentage of the total number
>>> of boxes in the world.
>>
>> Not every computer is enclosed in a 'box'. Also, I feel that
>> the use of the word 'box' to indicate a computer is an attempt
>> to sound 'kewl', which impresses me not.
>
>I suspect we can all agree on the following statements:
>
>1. Most non-embedded computer systems are more or less PC-compatible
>systems running x86 processors. This includes most desktop and laptop
>PCs and many (but by no means all) servers.
Exactly.
>2. Most computer systems, embedded or not, are *not* PC-compatibles.
>This includes the engine computer(s) in your car and the CPUs in your
>keyboard, your mobile phone, your washing machine, and your DVD
>player.
>
>I think the only point of disagreement is whether the term "computer"
>applies to embedded systems as well as to standalone computers. That
>may be an interesting question, but it's off-topic here.
Exactly. I think it is perfectly clear in man-on-the-street terms, but
I also understand why it is a point of contention in this NG (see below).
>Another question, that's more nearly topical, is how much programming
>(C or otherwise) is done for embedded systems vs. non-embedded
>systems, where "programming" might be measured in lines of code or in
>programmer hours. Certainly the vast majority of the programmers I've
>known haven't worked on embedded systems, but my experience is almost
>certainly not representative.
I'll bet (no, I don't have any statistics on this) that a large portion of
the new C programming that is happening today *is* in embedded systems
- hence the overwhelming urge here to consider such things "computers".
I can't see much point in doing new development on conventional computers
(aka, "non-embedded systems") in C or other low-level languages, except of
course for things like OSes and device drivers (and any other obvious
exceptions to my generalization). This is not, of course, to say that
learning C isn't a good thing - for any of a number of reasons.
- Next message: Malcolm: "Re: ++i vs i++"
- Previous message: Malcolm: "Re: ++i vs i++"
- In reply to: Keith Thompson: "Re: Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead"
- Next in thread: Alan Balmer: "Re: Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead"
- Reply: Alan Balmer: "Re: Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
