Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Horrible Visual C Bug!

Reply
Thread Tools

Horrible Visual C Bug!

 
 
Serve Laurijssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2003

"Falcon Kirtarania" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bRCSa.497430$(E-Mail Removed). ca...
> Perhaps not in ISO C, then. Whatever. As long as you don't need to port

it
> between compilers, it really doesn't matter.


And then comes the time that you have to port it and it needs to be ready
yesterday. It will really make your life easier if you do the portable thing
from the beginning, especially if it doesn't take any extra effort like the
"int main" example. In the end it will make your life easier (and that from
others).


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas Stegen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2003
Falcon Kirtarania wrote:
> It does, as long as you are considering only the standards of those
> compilers.


Why this insistance on writing invalid C? Doesn't the
correct version work on your compiler?

It works driving 120mph on a road were the speed limit is
30 mph. Because the police is not out today...


--
Thomas.
"What is the future c existence which does not do in all languages"

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:21:27 GMT, "Falcon Kirtarania" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Perhaps not in ISO C, then. Whatever. As long as you don't need to port it
>between compilers, it really doesn't matter.



Forgive me for interrupting but correct me if I'm wrong: are you
trying to make up excuses for not complying with the standards?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:22:21 GMT, "Falcon Kirtarania" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>It does, as long as you are considering only the standards of those
>compilers.


Well, now you are just being silly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Howard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
ignorethisbit_and_thefirst_underscor...i (E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:21:27 GMT, "Falcon Kirtarania" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps not in ISO C, then. Whatever. As long as you don't need to port it
> >between compilers, it really doesn't matter.

>
>
> Forgive me for interrupting but correct me if I'm wrong: are you
> trying to make up excuses for not complying with the standards?


Looks like it. Getting int main correct is so simple that anyone
refusing to abide by it should be fired anyway.

--
Randy Howard
(remove the obvious bits from my address to reply.)
"Most of the drivers nowadays are a bit like Eddie Irvine, who if
he was half as fast as he thought he was, would be moderate."
-- Sir Stirling Moss
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Howard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
In article <1SCSa.468687$(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> It does, as long as you are considering only the standards of those
> compilers.


Are you really this clueless, or just a troll? Compilers do not
define or express (recognized) standards by themselves. If you
want to claim "I write in standard Microsoft Visual C/C++ 6.0",
whatever that gibberish might imply, fine. Nobody should hire
you if that's your position however.

The "void main()" silliness got kick-started into heavy incorrect
use BECAUSE of the stupidity of the Microsoft C compiler and its
sample code along time ago. This, followed by some incredibly
bad books on the language by Schildt and his ilk just made it worse.


--
Randy Howard
(remove the obvious bits from my address to reply.)
"Most of the drivers nowadays are a bit like Eddie Irvine, who if
he was half as fast as he thought he was, would be moderate."
-- Sir Stirling Moss
 
Reply With Quote
 
Falcon Kirtarania
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
Yes, but since we really don't port main very much, I really don't see the
point. The only reason to do that is if you tend to reuse virtually the
same code and make versions over a long period of time. Which also brings
to a head; what trouble is it to change void to int and say "return 0" at
the end, when it is time to port? I am sure almost everyone would notice if
the void main was the problem.

"Serve Laurijssen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bff0ss$t46$(E-Mail Removed)1.nb.home.nl...
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bRCSa.497430$(E-Mail Removed). ca...
> > Perhaps not in ISO C, then. Whatever. As long as you don't need to

port
> it
> > between compilers, it really doesn't matter.

>
> And then comes the time that you have to port it and it needs to be ready
> yesterday. It will really make your life easier if you do the portable

thing
> from the beginning, especially if it doesn't take any extra effort like

the
> "int main" example. In the end it will make your life easier (and that

from
> others).
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Joona I Palaste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
Randy Howard <(E-Mail Removed)> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
> In article <1SCSa.468687$(E-Mail Removed) >,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> It does, as long as you are considering only the standards of those
>> compilers.


> Are you really this clueless, or just a troll? Compilers do not
> define or express (recognized) standards by themselves. If you
> want to claim "I write in standard Microsoft Visual C/C++ 6.0",
> whatever that gibberish might imply, fine. Nobody should hire
> you if that's your position however.


> The "void main()" silliness got kick-started into heavy incorrect
> use BECAUSE of the stupidity of the Microsoft C compiler and its
> sample code along time ago. This, followed by some incredibly
> bad books on the language by Schildt and his ilk just made it worse.


Come to think of it, has anyone ever expressed a reason for using void
main() instead of int main()? Whatever reason could there be?
"It works on more compilers." False. It actually works on less.
"You don't have to return a value." You don't have to return a value
from int main() either in some standards, and when you do, you can
safely always return 0.
"It saves typing." Since when does a 4-letter keyword save typing more
than a 3-letter one?
"Microsoft does it." If Microsoft jumped off the Grand Canyon, would
you follow them?
"Following standards is for sissies." Well... =)

--
/-- Joona Palaste ((E-Mail Removed)) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"And according to Occam's Toothbrush, we only need to optimise the most frequent
instructions."
- Teemu Kerola
 
Reply With Quote
 
Falcon Kirtarania
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
But all I am saying is not that it is good syntax, just that it is not
absolutely necessary.

"Randy Howard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) et...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> ignorethisbit_and_thefirst_underscor...i (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:21:27 GMT, "Falcon Kirtarania" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Perhaps not in ISO C, then. Whatever. As long as you don't need to

port it
> > >between compilers, it really doesn't matter.

> >
> >
> > Forgive me for interrupting but correct me if I'm wrong: are you
> > trying to make up excuses for not complying with the standards?

>
> Looks like it. Getting int main correct is so simple that anyone
> refusing to abide by it should be fired anyway.
>
> --
> Randy Howard
> (remove the obvious bits from my address to reply.)
> "Most of the drivers nowadays are a bit like Eddie Irvine, who if
> he was half as fast as he thought he was, would be moderate."
> -- Sir Stirling Moss



 
Reply With Quote
 
Joona I Palaste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2003
Falcon Kirtarania <(E-Mail Removed)> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
> Yes, but since we really don't port main very much, I really don't see the
> point. The only reason to do that is if you tend to reuse virtually the
> same code and make versions over a long period of time. Which also brings
> to a head; what trouble is it to change void to int and say "return 0" at
> the end, when it is time to port? I am sure almost everyone would notice if
> the void main was the problem.


If it isn't so much trouble to change void to int and say "return 0",
then why don't you do it? What do you gain by being gratuitously non-
standard? Are you some sort of rebel coder?

--
/-- Joona Palaste ((E-Mail Removed)) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"And according to Occam's Toothbrush, we only need to optimise the most frequent
instructions."
- Teemu Kerola
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl ...? sandy DVD Video 3 12-01-2004 10:28 PM
Crossroads Festival - Horrible case? FenderBender DVD Video 3 11-11-2004 07:06 AM
mydoom.m is horrible! Jim Berwick Computer Information 1 07-27-2004 06:14 PM
Horrible image quality steven DVD Video 3 03-06-2004 11:21 PM
Re: firebird fonts horrible and thin Gunther Firefox 1 07-19-2003 01:10 PM



Advertisments