Re: Should we broaden the topicality of this group?
- From: roberson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Walter Roberson)
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:36:49 +0000 (UTC)
In article <46fe7241$0$26503$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It'd be a lot easier for me to join group P if there were comp.lang.c.posix
and comp.lang.c.windows.
If there were a comp.lang.c.posix-1990, I would likely participate.
But not in a comp.lang.c.posix (1996) if it devolved mostly into
discussions of programming threads in C.
When I program in C, I program to C89 when practical; but if the
task inherently involves OS extensions (e.g., serial ports,
multiple processes) then I don't hesitate to use C89 with POSIX.1-1990.
The sum is not the same as comp.unix.programming, which has a wider
scope of languages and less focus on standards.
I am not advocating that -this- become a C + POSIX newsgroup, just
indicating where my C interests lie.
It has been stated that 98% of C programming is for embedded systems
these days; I have no information about whether that is an accurate
figure, but I can say that -I- for one continue to do C scientific and
systems programming.
--
"All is vanity." -- Ecclesiastes
.
- Prev by Date: Re: fwrite() misses writing a byte
- Next by Date: Re: fwrite() misses writing a byte
- Previous by thread: Re: Should we broaden the topicality of this group?
- Next by thread: Re: Find the number of elements in an enumerated type?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
