Are there any Free C Standard Documents ?

[Alan Balmer]

Frankly, I'd rather write code that was compatible with the compiler I'm
using,
standards-compliant or not.

That' OK, as long as you never need to use the code on any other
platform. Or recompile it with the next version of your compiler.

 

[Richard Bos]

That' OK, as long as you never need to use the code on any other
platform. Or recompile it with the next version of your compiler.

Or run it on your manager's computer, rather than on your own
development machine; appearances, especially those involving "it works
with this compiler", can be deceiving.

Richard

 

[Aslam Sheikh Durrani]

Interesting. The same query now has the page I saw as the second hit.
http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=36737

I don't vouch for its accuracy, it was just the first one presented. I
just didn't believe that an Indian programmer makes only $350/year

The numbers you found are considerably higher. IAC, I think a
programmer could scrounge up $18 for a tool so essential to his career
<G>.

You miss the point the OP was a student and not a programmer with a
Healthy Salary. Probably he just manages to access the Net from his
college lab.
I don't think C99 is that quint-essential for his career.
<OT>
Even with good salarys people don't have the Inclination to buy C99.
they are happy with their compiler.
<OT/>

-Aslam.

 

[Dan Pop]

Even with good salarys people don't have the Inclination to buy C99.
they are happy with their compiler.

Only fools deliberately ignore the difference between what works on their
compiler(s) and what works on *any* compiler. A *good* C reference,
not necessarily the C standard itself, is essential to anyone above the
hobbyist programmer level.

Dan

 

[Rufus V. Smith]

[...]
Frankly, I'd rather write code that was compatible with the compiler I'm
using,
standards-compliant or not.

"You are young. Life has been kind to you.
You ... will ... learn ..."
-- Benjamin Barker

I agree that as engineers and craftsperson's, we should
architect our wares in a standards - compliant fashion.

When working with a non-standard compiler like
C++ you still have to create code that works.

There isn't always the option to go with a better
compiler.

Most customers are more concerned about code
that works than what the source looks like.

Rufus

 

[Dan Pop]

[...]
Frankly, I'd rather write code that was compatible with the compiler I'm
using,
standards-compliant or not.

"You are young. Life has been kind to you.
You ... will ... learn ..."
-- Benjamin Barker

I agree that as engineers and craftsperson's, we should
architect our wares in a standards - compliant fashion.

When working with a non-standard compiler like
C++ you still have to create code that works.

There isn't always the option to go with a better
compiler.

Most customers are more concerned about code
that works than what the source looks like.

You have still failed to get the clue.

Maybe Eric's quote was too optimistic for your case...

Dan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

When working with a non-standard compiler like
C++ you still have to create code that works.

This doesn't preclude writing portably.

Most customers are more concerned about code
that works than what the source looks like.

Sure but Customers also want code that will be cheap to upgrade, easy to
maintain, reliable etc. You can get that pretty much for free if you try
your best to be Standards-compliant.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I agree that as engineers and craftsperson's, we should
architect our wares in a standards - compliant fashion.
Good.

When working with a non-standard compiler like
C++ you still have to create code that works.

I don't know what you mean by "a non-standard compiler like C++".
C++ is a language, not a compiler, and there is a standard for it.

If you mean that it's difficult to find C++ comilers that conform to
the standard, that may be true, but it's off-topic here. There are
plenty of C compilers that conform (reasonably well) to the C90
standard, and a few are starting to conform to the C99 standard.

There isn't always the option to go with a better
compiler.

You can usually write code in the intersection of what the compiler
supports and what the standard specifies. (For C90, that's usually
close to the entire standard.)

Most customers are more concerned about code
that works than what the source looks like.

Most customers don't care what the source looks like, but your
developers should. Well-written portable code tends to be less buggy
and easier to maintain.