|
|
On Mar 29, 7:36 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ymunt...@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.
Last time you first talked about issues being
not serious enough because you don't need access
to compiler source code for a fix (nice measure,
"just fix it and you're done"), then you finally
admitted there were even more serious issues.
Now again, "hardly serious ones". Have you got a
new scale?
>
> > 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.
It's not a heap of junk, it's a compiler released
before the standard has been published.
> 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,
Except when it does matter, like when the compiler
is not conforming. Your favorite CLOCKS_PER_SEC
even appears in code posted in comp.lang.c!
It all was told in another thread not so long ago.
Yes, Turbo C is still quite good, except the rare
cases when it's not, and beginners surely know
which code is fine for Turbo C and which isn't.
Yevgen
|
|