|
|
ymuntyan@xxxxxxxxx said:
> On Mar 29, 6:52 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ymunt...@xxxxxxxxx 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 because it's not an ISO C compiler?
>>
>> <shrug> You're right - it isn't. It's not far off, but there are indeed
>> a small number of minor conformance issues. I think the only one I've
>> ever bumped into in real code is the CLOCKS_PER_SEC thing, which is
>> hardly a showstopper.
>
> Your "I've ever bumped" here sounds like that's
> the only non-conformance issue you are aware of,
> but it's not.
No, ISTR that one or two other conformance issues exist, albeit hardly
serious ones.
> Sadly, it only confirms that you
> are advocating Turbo C just because you've done
> it and you won't admit you were wrong ("sadly"
> part if a joke, yes).
I'm not *advocating* it. I'm just refusing to condemn it out of hand,
that's all. For most purposes, it's fine, and I don't see why people are
making out that it's a heap of junk, when it clearly isn't. If I wanted to
*advocate* an implementation, I'd plump for either Visual Studio 6 or gcc.
But what I actually advocate is not getting too hung up on compilers -
it's better to focus on the language, and not to give a stuff which
compiler is used. If one writes in clc-conforming C, the compiler rarely
if ever matters, any more than the text editor used for writing the source
code matters.
--
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
|
|