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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: thornley@visi.com (David Thornley) Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1997/12/31 Message-ID: <68du36$l10$1@darla.visi.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 311676049 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 1997 11:06:46 CST Organization: Vector Internet Services, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1997-12-31T11:06:46-06:00 List-Id: In article <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net>, Alicia Carla Longstreet wrote: >Robert Dewar wrote: >: John says > >: <: preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it... >: I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'! > >: Of course the answer is that the language is defined by the standard. >What >: is surprising is your exclamation mark at the end of a statement that >should >: be common understanding for any programmer. > >Only programmers who have no concept of what a language, any language is. >Even if the Standard does define the language, it only did so on the day >the standard was finalized. Languages, even programming language, evolve > I look at it this way. I use Metrowerks Codewarrior a lot, and read their newsgroup, and I've noticed that there are two basic responses to complaints that "the compiler does X": 1. Sorry, but the compiler is conforming to the standard. You'll have to change your code. 2. Sorry, you're right, the compiler isn't conforming to the standard. We'll have that changed next version/next month with a patch. In the meantime, here's a workaround. Codewarrior, as shipped from the factory, is not a standard C compiler, but it can be made to be one (modulo bugs) with a few option selections. If I write standard C, I can use it with Codewarrior, or I can move it to a Unix box and use gcc, or I can.... Think of the standard as what you can count on in the language. The actual language a given compiler will accept is different, of course, and the range of C "dialects" increases with every release with a new feature or pragma or whatever. If you are writing a particular program for use with one version of one compiler on one system (and I haven't done that in a *long* time), you can go wild with the extensions. If you might want to reuse some of your code sometime, be careful with them. -- David H. Thornley | These opinions are mine. I david@thornley.net | do give them freely to those http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | who run too slowly. O-