Re: C is too old? opinions?
- From: gazelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kenny McCormack)
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:29:42 +0000 (UTC)
In article <9_idnXwDOOrOhWbbnZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eric Sosman <esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
Now let's see the list of compilers with 16-bit ints,
the list of compilers that support `void main()', the list
of compilers where `long' and `int' have the same range,
the list of compilers where converting a pointer to an `int'
and back does no harm, the list of compilers that allocate
unrelated `static' variables in adjacent cells in the order
declared, ...
You can generate lists of this kind for pretty much any
feature. The list of left-handed people is long; does that
mean it's wise to assume the next person you meet will be
left-handed?
As I'm entirely sure you are well aware, you are acting like these are
obscure compilers. It'd be like including a list of major software
manufactures that included obscure names like IBM and Microsoft, and
then acting like the list was irrelevant.
.
- References:
- Re: C is too old? opinions?
- From: Richard
- Re: C is too old? opinions?
- From: jacob navia
- Re: C is too old? opinions?
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: C is too old? opinions?
- Prev by Date: Re: Creating anonymous local variables on-the-fly and more...
- Next by Date: Re: char*
- Previous by thread: Re: C is too old? opinions?
- Next by thread: Re: C is too old? opinions?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|