Article View: comp.lang.eiffel
Article #1201Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer
From: Peter Seebach
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:14
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:14
48 lines
2909 bytes
2909 bytes
In article <827765484snz@tsys.demon.co.uk>, Tom Wheeley <tomw@tsys.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Surely you have just proved that the standard library is _not_ part of the >C language. At the risk of seeming -pedantic, I would say that the standard >library is a part of the _standard C *implementation*_, but not a part of >the standard C *language*. Nope. "This International Standard specifies and establishes the interpretation of programs written in the C programming language." What it specifies is C. >That is why you can build the standard library within C -- you cannot write >the entire standard library using the standard library, therefore if the >standard library is a part of the C language, then the standard library is >no longer written in the C language, but only a limited subset thereof. You cannot write the standard library in C; at least, not completely. You absolutely *must* have some way of reading or writing that is not a part of the C language. You also (if you wish to offer a respectable implementation) need to find some way to get or release memory, and you need a way to check on the time, and on CPU time used. None of this can be done in C-without-libraries, the language that C would be if the standard library were not a part of it. Implementors must write in a language which is also C, but is not the standard form; they write in what is called a freestanding evironment, one which may not have any or all of the library available, and which may require or offer special magic. Arguably, if you look at a "freestanding implementation", you have a language which is still C, but has no standard library; on the other hand, you can write no programs in it, because it does not specify how you start a program. (main() is only documented for hosted environments, i.e., those with libraries.) >I hope you understood that, I half expected to end up mentioning an index of >everything that is not indexed... ;-) Ahh, the World Wide Web. (Actually, that's the index of indexes with no things in them.) -s -- Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach. C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really! FUCK the communications decency act. Goddamned government. [literally.] The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4j7gdp$cl7@solutions.solon.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!solon.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <3154A548.71FF@iadfw.net> <4j3p80INN567@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <827765484snz@tsys.demon.co.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!solon.com!not-for-mail From: seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer Date: 25 Mar 1996 19:14:33 -0600 Organization: Usenet Fact Police (Undercover) Message-ID: <4j7gdp$cl7@solutions.solon.com> References: <1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <3154A548.71FF@iadfw.net> <4j3p80INN567@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <827765484snz@tsys.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com