🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6437@boring.UUCP> guido@boring.UUCP (Guido van Rossum) writes:
>was rather upset about what was left of my favourite language, "C".
>(Readers not prepared for flames, please skip to "Comments", below.)
>> #Options D=300
>What's this?  can't we just pass the options to the C compiler any more?
>
What do you think that is. An ice cream bar?
>----------
>> extended seconds;
>Huh?  Is this a recent extension to ANSI C that I have missed?
I didn't post an ANSI C program, I posted a Mac C program.
>----------
>with *fopen*, not with *open*.  On some systems (including that obscure
>system whose name starts with U, ends with an x and has nothing but footnotes
>in between) this makes a lot of differences, ya know.
I posted the program to net.sources.MAC, not net.U**x
>----------
>> /* Lots of printf's */
They said what I wanted them to say.

>I am sure that when I last looked, declarations should strictly *precede*
>statements.
It's not true in Mac C.
>
>----------
>>     printf("\nThis is a Macintosh with Consulair Mac C 2.0,\n");
>
>WRONG.  This Macintosh (i.e., mine) is running SUMacC.

And here I thought that your Vax was running SUMacC.
>Comments
>
>I won't comment on programming style, but I think that a program that is
Oh I thought you did.
>meant as a benchmark could at least have the decency to use only portable
>features of a language.  Where this is not possible (e.g., when the timing
>difference for using 'extended' numbers is exercised), #ifdefs should
>enclose the non-portable sections, and appropriate warnings made in comments.
I posted a Mac C source to net.sources.MAC, next time you see a posting
that says Mac C or Megamax C or something maybe you should consider it
as Forth or something.  

>...			  In this case, considering the burden already
>placed on the net by inappropriate or duplicate postings, it would have
Your posting was larger than my program and probably took longer to write.
>been better not to post it at all.  Consider this article as a short
>lesson in portability.
I hate to say it but almost none of the code posted to net.sources.mac is
portable.  I have to change include file names, toolbox calls, and many
other things.
>
>Admittedly, it is quite possible that the manufacturers of Consulair C
>have done their best to hide the fact that there are other versions of
>C than theirs, and not provided any clues to the differences.  The fact
>that they added #Options, one-line comments and the 'extended' data type
>makes one expect the worst.  One suspects that they have never been exposed
>to a real C compiler (I mean one running under U**x).  How come they're
>such a big success?
Extended data type was created by IEEE not Consulair. 
One line comments were under discussion by ANSI.
#Options is a preprocessor command which is needed because Mac C doesn't 
run under either 'sh' or 'csh' and thus has NO command line to parse.
What makes you think U**x compilers are so great.  A 4.2 program doesn't work
on a v7 or a SysV.......
>
>BTW, SUMacC floating point (at least what you get when you use 'double' or
>'float' variables) is not SANE, and it has some peculiarities, but the
>timing was about 22 seconds, independent of whether float or double was
>used.  The answer seemed right, at least for 'double'.  (Just to prove
>that I *did* manage to correct all the bugs mentioned above.)
The program ran as written on the compiler it was written for, and you
call these *bugs*???

I'm really glad you liked my program and I am so sorry that you wont be
able to compile any of my sources I decide to post, because I'm using
a native Macintosh language which contains calls not found in ANSI C
such as:

	GetResInfo()
	SetResInfo()
	OpenResourceFile()

Or are you saying that I shouldn't post programs to net.sources.MAC unless 
they'll run on a U**x machine?

What garbage.
-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 749-5806
 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200

"... Don't sue me, I'm just the piano player!...."