Clearly, it is too late to fix c99 - C is dead

[Derrick Coetzee]

This is really, really narrow of you. C, Java, and Visual Basic all have
their own, usually mutually-exclusive, problem domains. Using a C program
when you should be programming in VB is pretty damned stupid, and
vice-versa. Anyone who would say the above probably has only programmed in
one environment, making one kind of program in one language. If, indeed,
you have programmed at all.

Please don't insult me. I'm aware that C is used extensively in many
standalone environments, and I have used it in such environments in
industry, and it is one of my favourite languages. Speaking of the
industry in general, however, a lot of code produced nowadays is
high-level web and database applications that run on desktop PCs, and
other similarly boring stuff. I am not asserting that C has been
supplanted universally, but only that it is no longer dominant across
most of the industry as it once was.

 

[Chris Torek]

I think you need to define "any other OS" here.

You sure about that? As I've tried to make clear, my ego's no in this, but
I'm pretty sure that, counting boxes or counting CPUs, IBM compatible PCs
(including all the server boxes which are really just overgrown PCs)
running on x86 chips make up a substantial percentage of the total number
of boxes in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least 60%.

And I think you need to define "box" here.

Your microwave has a microprocessor. If your refrigerator is new
and high-end, it has one. Your TV has one; your VCR or DVD player
has one; your car, if it was built within the last decade, has at
least one, and probably over a dozen, CPUs. Are these "boxes"?

For that matter, even your desktop PC has more than one CPU. In
particular, every disk drive has a microprocessor, and a modern
multisync monitor has one. Your keyboard and mouse have (more
limited) microprocessors in them. The CPU on your motherboard --
which is the only one running Windows, if it is indeed running
Windows -- is quite outnumbered.

Now, if you want to do it by computing power - megaflops or whatever - you
might have a defensible position.

Actually, here, the Pentium-clones may have the edge. Many of the
small microprocessors (e.g., even the PowerPC in the TiVo) are
running at lower clock frequencies to reduce power dissipation
(which leads to heat, which requires a fan, which makes the TiVo
too noisy).

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I think you need to define "any other OS" here.

That's not me. That was the other poster's concept.

And I think you need to define "box" here.

As far as I'm concerned, a microwave is not a computer. It does have
a microprocessor, as you note. I think the point is that these days, just
about everything has a microprocessor, but that doesn't mean they are
computers.

And, the previous poster did say that:
^^^^^^^^

 

[Chris Torek]

That's not me. That was the other poster's concept.

Indeed -- and note which name is the only available referent for "you"
at that point.

Anyway, my point was that it is difficult to count "computers" and
"systems" and "OSes" without first defining each. Is an embedded
system a "system"? It has one or more microprocessors, and these
days, many of them are programmed in C (and some are even being
done in both Java and C, including high-end car "infotainment"
systems).

As far as I'm concerned, a microwave is not a computer. ...

This fits well with my personal definition of an "embedded system
computer", which is "any time you don't constantly think: there is
a computer in here" when you use it.

 

[Richard Bos]

Yes it's wrong. But Chris did not make that statement. He stated:
"Fortran and Cobol and Lisp descendants have failed."

Whether this is true or not I have no idea, especially when
'failed' is a subjective issue.

If he meant "Fortran and Cobol and (Lisp descendants)", it's clearly
untrue because of the first two languages.
However, I suspect he meant "(Fortran and Cobol and Lisp) descendants";
in which case, no, I don't know any succesful Fortran- and Cobol-alikes,
either, but AFAIK Scheme is doing reasonably well in the same areas for
which Lisp was originally used.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Please don't insult me. I'm aware that C is used extensively in many
standalone environments, and I have used it in such environments in
industry, and it is one of my favourite languages. Speaking of the
industry in general, however, a lot of code produced nowadays is
high-level web and database applications that run on desktop PCs,

Quite. And I don't want any database application written in VB or Java
on _my_ network, thank you very much. Java is for slow, broken Web code;
VB is for slow, broken amateurs' programs. For production code, one
either uses a domain-specific language (such as, for database programs,
dBase 2000, or even FoxPro), or a high quality general language such as
C.

Richard

 

[Alan Balmer]

As far as I'm concerned, a microwave is not a computer. It does have
a microprocessor, as you note. I think the point is that these days, just
about everything has a microprocessor, but that doesn't mean they are
computers.

My office is not a computer, either, but it has one in it. (Three,
actually.)

 

[Kenny McCormack]

My office is not a computer, either, but it has one in it. (Three,
actually.)

My car is not a door, but it has one in it. (2, actually)

Neither is my house a door, though it has several.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Mike Wahler]

If he meant "Fortran and Cobol and (Lisp descendants)", it's clearly
untrue because of the first two languages.
Yes.

However, I suspect he meant "(Fortran and Cobol and Lisp) descendants";

Yes, that's how I interpreted it also. Perhaps Chris will clarify.

-Mike

 

[Derrick Coetzee]

Java is for slow, broken Web code; VB is for slow, broken amateurs' programs.

If you believe either of these languages is confined to such small
domains, then it's your sphere that is small. Java is used in many
domains where portability is important, or where the added safety or
security of Java is important, including domains traditionally belonging
to C such as compilers and raytracers. Moreover, Java *can* be compiled
directly to native code that runs as fast as any other native code, and
you're confusing the Java language with the Java environment if you
imagine it can't be. Speed comparisons between modern VMs like the Java
HotSpot VM and native code also show that Java VMs can no longer really
be considered unacceptably slow in most cases (although heavyweight,
certainly). Welcome to 2004.

As for VB, well... er... I'm not about to defend VB.

 

[Alan Balmer]

My car is not a door, but it has one in it. (2, actually)

Neither is my house a door, though it has several.

Are we having fun yet?

If we were discussing how many doors exist, your remark would be
apropos. As it is, we are discussing how many computers there are, and
your microwave has one, whether the fact supports your argument or
not.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

If he meant "Fortran and Cobol and (Lisp descendants)", it's clearly
untrue because of the first two languages.
However, I suspect he meant "(Fortran and Cobol and Lisp) descendants";

On reflection, I believe you're right, though I made the same error
as beliavsky in my previous post. That said, however, I still think
Chris is wrong.

in which case, no, I don't know any succesful Fortran- and Cobol-alikes,
either,

Both Fortran and COBOL feature current standards which offer
significant new features beyond what those languages traditionally
provided, and both seem to have communities of developers who use
only the traditional features, as well as communities who use the
new ones.

COBOL, for example, now features OO. Few COBOL programmers use OO
COBOL, but enough do to make supporting it profitable.

So in a sense, Fortran and COBOL *are* descendants of Fortran and
COBOL. They just didn't bother renaming the language.

but AFAIK Scheme is doing reasonably well in the same areas for
which Lisp was originally used.

Yes, and again with Lisp we have Common Lisp with its OO support
(CLOS), which is substantially different from traditional Lisp.

What chiefly distinguishes C and its "descendants" from the other
cases is that there was a strong movement to preserve C with only
relatively unobtrusive changes; thus most of the various languages
that diverged from C had to present themselves as new languages to
gain wide acceptance.

--
Michael Wojcik (e-mail address removed)

It's like being shot at in an airport with all those guys running
around throwing hand grenades. Certain people function better with
hand grenades coming from all sides than other people do when the
hand grenades are only coming from inside out.
-- Dick Selcer, coach of the Cinci Bengals

 

[Michael Wojcik]

As far as I'm concerned, a microwave is not a computer.

I don't believe Chris claimed that it was. He said there was a
computer in it, and he questioned the definition of "box". I believe
the implication was that "box" should not be defined as "computer".

It does have
a microprocessor, as you note. I think the point is that these days, just
about everything has a microprocessor, but that doesn't mean they are
computers.

The people who write software for them probably feel differently.

And, the previous poster did say that:

^^^^^^^^

And he's right.

You may choose to define "computer" as "general-purpose computer", but
don't be surprised if the rest of us continue to use a more sensible
definition.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You may choose to define "computer" as "general-purpose computer", but
don't be surprised if the rest of us continue to use a different
definition.

No problem. And I won't lose any sleep over it, either.

Keep in mind that if you told the average man on the street that there was
a computer in his microwave, he'd rush home and open the door to remove his
PC from the microwave (and hope that no one turned the microwave on while
the PC was in there).

 

[Dave Vandervies]

(e-mail address removed) (Richard Bos) writes:

COBOL, for example, now features OO.

That would be ADD ONE TO COBOL GIVING COBOL?

So in a sense, Fortran and COBOL *are* descendants of Fortran and
COBOL. They just didn't bother renaming the language.


Yes, and again with Lisp we have Common Lisp with its OO support
(CLOS), which is substantially different from traditional Lisp.

What chiefly distinguishes C and its "descendants" from the other
cases is that there was a strong movement to preserve C with only
relatively unobtrusive changes; thus most of the various languages
that diverged from C had to present themselves as new languages to
gain wide acceptance.

This looks like a (slight) overstatement of the case to me.

C++ is really the only "true" descendant of C; the other C-like languages
(at least the ones I know about) tend to have entirely different lineage
with C-like syntax pasted on (because curly braces are so much k3wLer than
"begin" and "end").

Interestingly, most C implementations come packaged with C++
implementations, and it's usually not difficult (though seldom entirely
trivial) to convert a well-written C program to a program that does The
Right Thing when given to a C++ compiler. (Not that there's often a
good reason to do this.)

So it seems that C and C++, taken as a pair, are not at all unlike F77
and F90 (if I've got those names right), or Lisp and Lisp-with-CLOS,
or old-COBOL and new-COBOL-with-OO, and languages like Java are just
hangers-on that add to the confusion.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies (e-mail address removed)

The only rule is 'read everything Chris Torek writes'.

Have you seen his latest shopping list? Heavy stuff...
--CBFalconer and Richard Heathfield in comp.lang.c

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Keep in mind that if you told the average man on the street that there was
a computer in his microwave, he'd rush home and open the door to remove his
PC from the microwave (and hope that no one turned the microwave on while
the PC was in there).

I give the average man on the street more credit than that - at long
as we're talking about anglophone men who know what a microwave
[oven] is, and have some idea of what a computer is. (I can hardly
expect someone who doesn't meet those conditions to understand the
mooted statement.)

I suspect most educated people in the industrialized world are
conversant with the idea of embedded computers. For example, I don't
believe I've run into an automobile owner in the past decade or so
who wasn't aware that there was some kind of "computer" controlling
their car's engine, even if they had little idea what it might
actually be doing.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:55:13 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,

So true. But there's a f*** lot of idiots in the world, and more than your
fair share of masochists.

True. However this doesn't make them any less idiotic, and I can report
that none of them work for me, or will do in the future.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I suspect most educated people in the industrialized world are
conversant with the idea of embedded computers. For example, I don't
believe I've run into an automobile owner in the past decade or so
who wasn't aware that there was some kind of "computer" controlling
their car's engine, even if they had little idea what it might
actually be doing.

The fact that you put "computer" in quotes proves my point.

Anyone with any sense knows that a microprocessor isn't a computer anymore
than a door is a house. Or that a CRT is a TV.

Now, to be fair, I have come across a fair number of uneducated people who
refer to PCs as CPUs - no doubt because they think it makes them sound cool.
You know - as in, "Hey Fred, could you go install Word on Joe's CPU?".

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:58:50 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,

You sure about that? As I've tried to make clear, my ego's no in this, but
I'm pretty sure that, counting boxes or counting CPUs, IBM compatible PCs
(including all the server boxes which are really just overgrown PCs)
running on x86 chips make up a substantial percentage of the total number
of boxes in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least 60%.

There are CONSIDERABLY more nonobvious computers in the world than there
are personal computers. How many people in the US have mobile phones?
Cars? Microwaves? Digital alarm clocks? Video recorders? DVD players? MP3
players? PDAs? And we've not even started to think about ATMs, Pin card
readers, cash registers, vote counters, etc etc etc....

Mind you, if they're using VB to write vote-counting software, I can
predict the Nov result now:

G Bush -0x80090317
J Kerry -0x8009030D
R Nader Out of Cheese error +++ Redo From Start +++++

 

[Alan Balmer]

The fact that you put "computer" in quotes proves my point.

Anyone with any sense knows that a microprocessor isn't a computer anymore
than a door is a house. Or that a CRT is a TV.

So anyone who disagrees with your personal definition has no sense.
You should probably be warned that there are a *lot* of people who
don't agree with you.

Now, to be fair, I have come across a fair number of uneducated people who
refer to PCs as CPUs - no doubt because they think it makes them sound cool.
You know - as in, "Hey Fred, could you go install Word on Joe's CPU?".

I've come across a few who think that a microprocessor is not a
computer.