Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:08:42 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 30, 10:25 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 said:
On Dec 30, 4:14 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Malcolm McLean said:
The identity of char and byte, with hindsight, was a mistake.
I'm not convinced, Malcolm. What makes you think it's a mistake?
3000 Chinese characters minimum needed to read the People's Daily, for
starters.
The C language places no upper limit on the size of a byte. Your reply is
predicated on the false assumption that bytes are required to be precisely
eight bits wide.
This isn't true in practice. The C language allows the programmer to
freely convert bytes to bit strings: the type isn't protected. This
means that it would be folly to use a C program blindly to work with
wide characters without a line by line audit.
Furthermore, even if you're able to change char to w_char, you'd need
a whole new set of functions, since functions have strong types and
real C programs make heavy use of library functions as a part of the
language.
We're not talking about a fantasy C, some clean, current and
conformant C. We're talking about the real world.
It is in my view unethical to promote C in this way, because it
appears that you want clients to adopt C and then retain you to make
the poor decision work in some way, by making real C conformant.
Java and to an extent .Net are in fact portable. C is only portable
amongst C-aware platforms.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- References:
- Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Malcolm McLean
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Prev by Date: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Next by Date: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Previous by thread: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Next by thread: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|