|
|
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Mar 28, 4:25 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Nick Keighleywrote:
>> > CBFalconer <cbfalco...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Nick Keighleywrote:
>> >>> Simon <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> >>>> Actually I'm mostly learning C from the book by H. Schildt,
>> >>>> which is excellent but it doesn't mention near and far pointers
>> >>>> at all. I find them quite confusing, so I think any book should
>> >>>> explain them clearly.
>>
>> >>>> As for being obsolete, the good thing is that Borland have
>> >>>> released Turbo-C for free now, so there's no need to worry about
>> >>>> Micro$oft license fees. Also C doesn't change much!
>>
>> >>> there are many free compilers for modern systems (no near and
>> >>> far). If you are confined to Windows then there is a gcc based
>> >>> one (ming-w (sp?)) lcc (no charge for non-commercial use) and
>> >>> even Microsoft express versions.
>>
>> >> Those are NOT 16 bit systems. They cannot be used to check code
>> >> executes correctly on a minimal system.
>>
>> > I can't find anywhere the OP had this as a requirement.
>>
>> It's part of the C standard.
>
> what are you talking about? The OP wants to learn C. He's using
> an old version of Turbo C. He says he's doing this to avoid
> "license fees". I pointed out some free C compilers.
>
> So where in the C standard does it say the Original Poster
> needs to compile on a 16 bit system?
>
> <snip big lump of standardese>
He is saying that since the standard guarantees only 16 bits for int,
one should use Turbo C to compile their code, to ensure portability to
16 bit systems.
|
|