|
|
On Mar 30, 8:43 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ymunt...@xxxxxxxxx said:
>
> <snip>
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, I accepted that you (or whoever it was) weren't just making stuff up.
> Was that a wrong assumption?
That wasn't wrong assumption, no.
>
> > Now again, "hardly serious ones". Have you got a
> > new scale?
>
> No, I don't even have a list. Do you?
So indeed "serious enough" back then are again "hardly serious"
now. Here's a quote: "If one needs the source to make the
implementation conform, then that's a serious problem
that effectively renders the game not worth the candle,
and one would be better off seeking a better implementation."
Guess whose words these were.
You are a real Turbo C fan, just admit it :)
>
> >> > 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.
>
> Yes, by about a week (or whatever). Big deal.
Yep. Borland is a perfect company, it makes perfect
software. Assumption that the compiler released together
with the standard is conforming is laughable alone,
even if you forget about actual present non-conformance
issues. No, I don't mean that Borland sucks or
Turbo C sucks, I am sure Turbo C was great. Back *then*,
not today though, when the minimum required level of
C89 conformance is "complete modulo bugs", and not for
today beginners whose conforming code won't work with
that compiler. I am pretty sure it works just fine for
Chuck F.
(Of course "a week" is very much made up, but it doesn't
really matter, things wouldn't be different if the compiler
was released a week after the standard, or even a year
after the standard)
Yevgen
|
|