From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public From: Bradd W. Szonye Subject: RE: ANSI C and POSIX Date: 1996/04/20 Message-ID: <01bb2ed3.70d672a0$65c2b7c7@Zany.localhost>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 150608191 references: <4l2rvoINN7os@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <01bb2dd1.53b4e740$c6c2b7c7@Zany.localhost> <4l9eqf$eh8@solutions.solon.com> organization: Netcom x-netcom-date: Sat Apr 20 11:04:03 AM CDT 1996 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-20T11:04:03-05:00 List-Id: On Friday, April 19, 1996, Peter Seebach wrote... > In article <01bb2dd1.53b4e740$c6c2b7c7@Zany.localhost>, > Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > >You can get 9899 for 30 bucks at a bookstore. Herbert Schildt wrote an > >annotated version, much more readable than the standard alone. And $30 is > >cheap for computer books. > > "More readable than the standard alone"? Bullshit. In the plain standard, > all the text is on both pages. In the "annotated" one, the standard text > is on one page, and the facing page contains lies, bullshit, and hypotheses, > disguised as annotations. > > The annotated one used to be missing a page, although this may be fixed, > has a moderately crucial "." missing from the specification of floating > point numbers, does not have any updates from the technical corrigendum > or normative addendum... > > And, of course, remember that the annotations are *hopelessly* wrong, on > a consistent and regular basis. This is possibly one of the most useless, > if not downright *dangerous*, things you can do; it's horrible. > > I personally think McGraw-Hill should lose their license to reproduce the > standard; I've corresponded with them about errors in their books, and > they've chosen to take the path of "No author who has sold this many books > could possibly be wrong that often." > > If you doubt that the man is fundementally and basically unqualified to be > writing a book on C, just remember that in the 2nd edition of > _C: The Complete Reference_, we see "<>" used as an inequality operator. > (Page 53.) In the third edition, it's fixed - but the other mistakes on > the same page aren't. (There's at least 3; look 'em up if you have the book, > and if you can't find them, worry.) > I stand corrected. I mostly use the book to read the standard on the left-hand pages, ignoring Schildt's commentary on the right-hand side. I've read standards documents enough that I can mostly make sense of them without help from the annotations. I mostly recommend the book as an affordable way to obtain the standard itself; take the commentary with a grain of salt. One thing I don't like about the book personally is that it's too old to contain the update for Amendment 1 (re: internationalization). That's why I also use Plauger/Brodie's Standard C: A Reference. It's a thin book that seems mostly correct, and it has an online HTML version of the book that you can install on a PC. It's got typos and editing errors too, but that's why I try to apply common sense and use more than one book as a reference when possible. Even the standards themselves occasionally let clerical errors slip in; as always, I never let a document substitute for common sense and reason.