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
now).

> >  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 [1] based systems).

  -spc (Been using 32-bit systems now for ... um ... 16 years?  Yikes!)

[1]	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
	than hardware.




More information about the cctalk mailing list