Forum unknown
· Programming
#Word Perfect Pulls Plug
9 messages in this thread
Yes, I agree that function prototyping is astep in the right direction (C
only has one direction open to it :)), and yes, it will help develope code
that has less errors. It is, however, my contention that Manx supplies
other things that Lattice doesn't, that do the same thing… like make, to
name just one. And of course there is SDB, which will help most people find
a bad bug faster, and possibly teach them something in the process.
> Sb: #116884-Word Perfect Pulls Plug
I missed this chain. Who did WP pull the plug on?
> Yes, I agree that function prototyping is astep in the right direction…
> Manx supplies other things that Lattice doesn't, that do the same
thing…
Manx should have either implemented function prototyping, or left out
structure passing to functions. Every so often I get bitten by:
struct NewWindow nw = { … };
window = OpenWindow(nw);
or something like that. Structure assignment and return don't cause these
problems because those operations are type-checked. The moral:
You can't have old C and ANSI too.
> [C has only one direction to go]
There have been serious suggestions to replace
char *(*foo)();
with
foo: pointer to function returning pointer to char;
by people who don't realise the chaos that would ensue. There are lots of
directions C can go other than up…
Whil I do indulge in hyperbole at times, I was fairly serious when I said
that C only has one direction to go. True, there are ways to make it worse,
and the one you mentioned is a good example of trying to fit non-C things
into C. I do think though, that the more things that can be standardized, and
the more that can be defined properly without leaving things to the compiler
writer, the better off the language will be.
Whil I do indulge in hyperbole at times, I was fairly serious when I said
that C only has one direction to go. True, there are ways to make it worse,
and the one you mentioned is a good example of trying to fit non-C things
into C. I do think though, that the more things that can be standardized, and
the more that can be defined properly without leaving things to the compiler
writer, the better off the language will be.
Peter… forgot the first question in your message. There was a message left
on one of the Atari forums that stated WordPerfect was pulling out of the
Atari market due to piracy. Apparently they changed their mind after seeing
the reaction to it.
Peter… forgot the first question in your message. There was a message left
on one of the Atari forums that stated WordPerfect was pulling out of the
Atari market due to piracy. Apparently they changed their mind after seeing
the reaction to it.
> Sb: #116884-Word Perfect Pulls Plug
I missed this chain. Who did WP pull the plug on?
> Yes, I agree that function prototyping is astep in the right direction…
> Manx supplies other things that Lattice doesn't, that do the same
thing…
Manx should have either implemented function prototyping, or left out
structure passing to functions. Every so often I get bitten by:
struct NewWindow nw = { … };
window = OpenWindow(nw);
or something like that. Structure assignment and return don't cause these
problems because those operations are type-checked. The moral:
You can't have old C and ANSI too.
> [C has only one direction to go]
There have been serious suggestions to replace
char *(*foo)();
with
foo: pointer to function returning pointer to char;
by people who don't realise the chaos that would ensue. There are lots of
directions C can go other than up…
Except of course that SDB also has bugs of its own! 🙂
P.S. In the great Lattice vs. Manx debate, my vote goes to Manx, bugs not
withstanding. I started with Lattice and moved to Manx later. I find it
to be somewhat more comfortable as a development environment. — L.
Except of course that SDB also has bugs of its own! 🙂
P.S. In the great Lattice vs. Manx debate, my vote goes to Manx, bugs not
withstanding. I started with Lattice and moved to Manx later. I find it
to be somewhat more comfortable as a development environment. — L.