|
|
Chris McDonald said:
>>On Mar 28, 1:58 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Keith Thompson said:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> > I don't think anyone was seriously advocating TC2.01 for beginning C
>>> > programmers.
>>>
>>> I would advocate as many C compilers as possible for beginning C
>>> programmers. Why exclude Turbo C?
>
> Perhaps it's your wording, but for "beginning C programmers" I would
> seriously recommend using only a single C compiler, and one that
> co-exists well with their preferred operating system (or the one used
> for instruction).
>
> Using "as many C compilers as possible", presumably each with different
> incantations and interpretations of standards, would only confuse the
> learning of the language itself.
I don't think it would, if it were done properly.
When I was learning C (and yes, I learned using TC2.01), I was somewhat put
off Microsoft C because my tutor said that "Microsoft C is *weird*". It
isn't, of course. It's just C. But, having spent several weeks learning
what I thought was *the* C language, I was now faced with the apparent
prospect of there being many different Cs, of which I had learned only
one. This was a gross misrepresentation of reality (although, to be fair
to my tutor, ANSI had only just done their thing, and perhaps not everyone
was fully up to speed yet with the implications of a standard C language),
but nevertheless it coloured my perception of C for some years afterwards.
I rather regret not being introduced to multiple compilers during that
time. It would have significantly hastened my nascent understanding of the
idea of a "standard language".
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: - www">http://www. +rjh@
Google users: < www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php">http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
|
|