14 Mar
2005
14 Mar
'05
5:16 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great woodelf once stated:
An example? I for one find pre-ANSI C to be pretty horrid stuff myself.
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
Well, C++ *isn't* C. But what do you mean by "bloat" or "NEW"
standard?
The only new standard for C is ANSI C99 (which is already six years old
now).
Which C Standard? C89? That mandates the
following:
a char type, minimum of 8 bits
Now they default to bloat or C++ or the 'NEW' standard. You can
certainly have a signed char and an unsigned char, but just a
plain "char" would give you one of the other (implementation detail).
I read the C-bible once ... C was clean on the PDP-11 but not so any more. What I did notice is how improved basic hardware has
defined the basic
language one programmed in. 8080/8088 languages all have seem to very
verbose and very primitve with very few operations. PL/M-8080 and
Um? Verbose and few operations?
Then again, my own eperiences with langauges on 8-bit machines was limited
to BASIC and Assembly. I've only used higher level languages on 16bit
machines or higher (starting with 8088 [1] based systems).
-spc (Been using 32-bit systems now for ... um ... 16 years? Yikes!)
[1] Yes, hardware wise the 8088 is an 8-bit machine, but software wise
it could be treated as a 16-bit machine. A *slow* 16-bit machine,
but a 16-bit machine nonetheless. I was always more into software
than hardware.