Programming and OS's
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
spc at conman.org
Mon Mar 14 16:16:15 CST 2005
It was thus said that the Great woodelf once stated:
> Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
> > Which C Standard? C89? That mandates the following:
> > a char type, minimum of 8 bits
> Now they default to bloat or C++ or the 'NEW' standard.
Well, C++ *isn't* C. But what do you mean by "bloat" or "NEW" standard?
The only new standard for C is ANSI C99 (which is already six years old
> > You can certainly have a signed char and an unsigned char, but just a
> > plain "char" would give you one of the other (implementation detail).
> I read the C-bible once ... C was clean on the PDP-11 but not so any more.
An example? I for one find pre-ANSI C to be pretty horrid stuff myself.
> What I did notice is how improved basic hardware has defined the basic
> language one programmed in. 8080/8088 languages all have seem to very
> verbose and very primitve with very few operations. PL/M-8080 and
Um? Verbose and few operations?
Then again, my own eperiences with langauges on 8-bit machines was limited
to BASIC and Assembly. I've only used higher level languages on 16bit
machines or higher (starting with 8088  based systems).
-spc (Been using 32-bit systems now for ... um ... 16 years? Yikes!)
 Yes, hardware wise the 8088 is an 8-bit machine, but software wise
it could be treated as a 16-bit machine. A *slow* 16-bit machine,
but a 16-bit machine nonetheless. I was always more into software
More information about the cctalk