Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > C is fixed or not ?

Reply
Thread Tools

C is fixed or not ?

 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
Le 06/07/11 06:09, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) a écrit :
> jacob navia<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the
>> standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group

>
> Obviously. Strangely, none of the proposals I've made in
> alt.usage.english to change the English language have made it into the
> OED, either.


Your arrogance is without limits. Go ahead




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
deeanabrown33 deeanabrown33 is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
 
      07-06-2011
hi,
i'm new here,
can you tell me about this forum?
=================================================
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit :

> There's always a lot of old code that never gets rewritten to work
> with/take advantage of new features in the language. That's one of the
> key reasons why both I and the committee prefer a more conservative
> approach to language change than you usually do. It's rather
> refreshing to see you recognizing this as a potential problem. There's
> some hope for you yet!
>


NONE of the proposal I have developped (operator overloading,
usage of const, container library) makes ANY incompatible changes
with existing code or makes for a full replacement of existing code.
My proposals centered in NEW syntax/semantics for NEW code.

> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit
> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities
> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX
> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather
> than being written separately for each environment. This is a
> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to
> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and
> advantage.
>


The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this
into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him
even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because
the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs.


The committee hasn't done any improvement of the completely obsolete
C library, refuses to consider (for 5 years) a revision of the
overflow bug for asctime() in the language standard text, refuses
any change and suddenly wakes up to life, and will promulgate
a new standard in record time because Plauger needs his multi-
threading library as a standard.

OK, go ahead.

> I certainly hope that someone will have proven that the new features
> are implementable, by implementing them, before the final vote is made
> on the decision to mandate them. Do you have any rational reason to
> think that they won't be?
>


Microsoft has abandoned C as a language and tries to get away from
it with the new versions of windows OS. C# and .net are now their
focus, and the decisions of the C standards committee are not much
worth for them: they never implemented c99, and probably will not
do anything for the next one either.

Gnu stopped caring about C some time ago, and even if their
implementation of c99 is a good one they stopped developing
it some years ago since their main effort is c++. They may
implement the new features or not, nobody knows. If they stopped
implementing c99 it is unlikely that they give much credit to
the committee for the next standard.


>> The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because
>> they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to
>> implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them.

>
> They weren't widely supported ... because they were easy to
> implement?! Do you think they would have been more widely adopted if
> they had been harder to implement?
>


You are misquoting me because you have nothing to say.

> ...
>> > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of
>> > the most popular requests in this forum...

>>
>> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in
>> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my
>> memory serves

>
> The frequent use of "thread" in this forum to refer to a connected set
> of messages makes it difficult to search for such things accurately.
> However, I quickly found such a suggestion that had been made as
> recently as January this year, in the thread titled "Interview with
> Mr. Stroustrup". Considering the source, I wouldn't consider it a
> serious suggestion, but it was widely discussed by many people,
> including yourself.
>


That was a C++ guy that told here: Do as C++ does. Since C++ wants
multi-threading support C should do it too. It was a two lines
sentence, and all the discussion was about Stroustroup and C++,
not C.


>> It is obvious that you want t support the committee, and maybe it is

>
> I have no desire to support them any farther than I actually am in
> agreement with them. As I'm frequently in disagreement with them, and
> have frequently expressed such disagreement, I'm at a loss as to how
> you could conclude otherwise.
>
> ...
>> The first versions of the specs were just a COPY AND PASTE from the
>> documentation of Plaugher's multi-thread library.

>
> Well, in that case it should be pretty easy to confirm whether the
> proposal can be implemented; if nothing else, Plaugher can make the
> needed modifications to his own library, and determine whether they
> work. Since his library is fairly popular, that also suggests that
> there's a reasonable amount of existing experience with how to use a
> library that's not too different from the final proposal.


But WHY do we have to include that library in the core language?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
(E-Mail Removed) writes:
> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the
>> standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group

>
> Obviously. Strangely, none of the proposals I've made in
> alt.usage.english to change the English language have made it into the
> OED, either.


I'll just mention that
<http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/standards> says:

The public can submit proposed defect reports via the Internet news
group comp.std.c++

and that I personally would like comp.std.c to have a similar status
with the C committee.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
In message <iuu452$3mq$(E-Mail Removed)>, MikeP <(E-Mail Removed)>
writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <4e116c59$0$13719$(E-Mail Removed)>, David Remacle
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear.
>>>
>>> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?
>>>
>>> Thank's.
>>>
>>> ps I would not be a throll it is just a question.

>>
>> The C language is still in change. There should be a new version in
>> 2012

>
>C cannot be changed, it can only be replaced.


Wrong.... We are constantly updating C

--
Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
http://www.sarahpac.com/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jens Gustedt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
Am 06.07.2011 04:46, schrieb Ian Collins:
> On 07/ 6/11 02:21 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Atomics are a language feature, not something that can be specified in a
> library.


I disagree.

I consider the library part of the new standard about atomic
operations the most interesting one. Compiler vendors already provide
extensions for this (I know particularly of gcc) and it is a very
interesting move to standardize this.

In particular I think you don't need support of atomic types (_Atomic
in C1x) to implement these new library calls.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tim Rentsch
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>The key question is not whether (or how widely) C1X might be
>used but how widely it will be implemented. If C1X is widely
>implemented then its new features will be used.



That is the crux of the problem. C99 was very slow in it's uptake and
then only partially. IF C1X is also not what the industry wants then
it too will be ignored.

This will damage the credibility of the ISO C Group

ISO C standards should be standardising current practice not introducing
new things. If new things are wanted compiler companies would already
be implementing them for their customers.

If there is (or is not) customer demand compiler companies will (or
will not) implement features no matter what the standard says.

--
Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
http://www.sarahpac.com/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit :
>
>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit
>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities
>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX
>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather
>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a
>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to
>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and
>> advantage.
>>

>
> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this
> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him
> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because
> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs.


Care to cite where that rumour originated? I don't see PJP as authour
of any of the C++ threading proposal papers.

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stefan Ram
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
David Remacle <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?


I have learned that not everyone participating in this
newsgroup has a background in computer science. So it
seems that I'll have to explain:

A programming language is a »formal language«:

»In computer science[, formal languages] are used, among
other things, for the precise definition of data formats
and the syntax of programming languages.«

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language

, and a formal language is a »set of words«. Sets do not
change in time. If one changes just one word, however tiny
the change is, one gets a different set. This is, why
programming languages cannot change in time.

However, the meaning of words can change in time, for
example, »C« today is another programming language than »C«
in 1995. To avoid confusion, we also need time-independent
identifiers for programming language. For C, one thus can
prefix »C« with the name of the publication or publications
defining it, such as, for example »ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E)+TR1 C«.

 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2011
Le 06/07/11 10:10, Ian Collins a écrit :
> On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit :
>>
>>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit
>>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities
>>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX
>>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather
>>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a
>>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to
>>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and
>>> advantage.
>>>

>>
>> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this
>> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him
>> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because
>> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs.

>
> Care to cite where that rumour originated? I don't see PJP as authour of
> any of the C++ threading proposal papers.
>


The original proposal for the C library presented was a copy and paste
of the documentation of Plauger's multi-threading library.
 
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
Newbie: fixed and not-empty element monique XML 3 01-27-2006 09:20 AM
Has 2.0 Fixed this 1.1 bug? Radio Buttons Are Not Mutually Exclusive When Used in a Repeater Server Control sloan@ipass.net ASP .Net 0 01-06-2006 09:23 PM
Free Fixed-Width/Fixed-Pitch fonts? johnp HTML 4 05-23-2005 06:14 AM
"Transparent" div not possible in IE - "background-attachment: fixed" not properly rendered GuyBrush Treepwood HTML 4 03-29-2005 07:16 AM
Fixed: Pix 501 which will not send on VPN AnyBody43 Cisco 0 10-28-2004 02:25 PM



Advertisments