Re: Not STD C is "not C" ? ----WAS: Re: C to Java Byte Code

From: Programmer Dude (Chris_at_Sonnack.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:38:02 -0500

Thomas G. Marshall writes:

> There is a *prevailing* notion that:
>
> If it ain't standard C, it ain't C
>
> which I think is not quite true.

Of course not. The only place that "notion" really prevails is in the
comp.lang.c group. And as a number of regulars (or in my case, former
regulars) hang out here, too, we get it here, too.

> This is related to something else I also think is false:
>
> If it ain't standard C, you should not write in it

Right (it's false).

> But knowing the standard, IMHO, isn't the bottom line.

Right. It's the first line! It's somewhat like an artist needing
to know how to paint a face correctly before they start experimenting
with alternate forms and formats. *Knowledgeable* departure from
the standard is the key.

> Knowing the "usual" rules of C, particularly the /likely/ behavior
> of something undefined or platform dependent in the spec, is,
> particularly if you're recruiting.

I don't agree it's the bottom line, but it's an important one, IMO.

Quantcast