On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:40:57 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:> >"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message >news:9nkfu0ljh7tnj8qkfd1p0ap3s0budv3fmb@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:10:21 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote: >> >>>Do all operating systems have to be JUST LIKE UNIX? Is UNIX the only good >>>operating system the world ever saw? >> >> No, but for any system that uses C (or a relative) it's a PITA. >> >> printf("Enter backup path, formatted as \\\\machine\\dir\\subdir\\...");But the operating system (as opposed to the command.com) has _always_ accepted the forward slash as a directory separator in system calls. Try it. printf("Enter backup path, formatted as //machine/dir/subdir/...");> >So don't use C. Use C#, designed for Windows. You then have the option toNo thanks. Just another Microsoft "embrace and extend" trap. Regards, -=Dave -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
AVR compilers
Started by ●January 9, 2005
Reply by ●January 17, 20052005-01-17
Reply by ●January 17, 20052005-01-17
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:31:08 GMT, iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote:>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:40:57 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote: > >> >>"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message >>news:9nkfu0ljh7tnj8qkfd1p0ap3s0budv3fmb@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:10:21 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>Do all operating systems have to be JUST LIKE UNIX? Is UNIX the only good >>>>operating system the world ever saw? >>> >>> No, but for any system that uses C (or a relative) it's a PITA. >>> >>> printf("Enter backup path, formatted as \\\\machine\\dir\\subdir\\..."); > >But the operating system (as opposed to the command.com) has _always_ >accepted the forward slash as a directory separator in system calls. >Try it.Yup, I know. The printf() example was a plucked-from-midair attempt to dummy-up a "user prompt" that would need the extra escapes to show something in the expected form.>printf("Enter backup path, formatted as //machine/dir/subdir/..."); > >> >>So don't use C. Use C#, designed for Windows. You then have the option to > >No thanks. Just another Microsoft "embrace and extend" trap.Isn't "embrace, extend, eliminate" the complete quote? Not that MS would ever want to eliminate standard C or C++ in favor of C#. Would they? -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Reply by ●January 17, 20052005-01-17
"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message news:7ornu01s0id5jmnvlqdft6mud60qpoiekm@4ax.com...>>>So don't use C. Use C#, designed for Windows. You then have the option >>>to >> >>No thanks. Just another Microsoft "embrace and extend" trap. > > Isn't "embrace, extend, eliminate" the complete quote?Quoting whom?> Not that MS would > ever want to eliminate standard C or C++ in favor of C#. Would they?I would like to eliminate them both in favor of anything that is not so error prone. C and C++ are designed around the false belief that the programmer will never make a mistake and the data will never overflow the buffer. See: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CeeLanguageAndBufferOverflows I refer to C as UPL (Uninitialized Pointer Language). It has introduced whole classes of bugs and security holes that would never existed (except maybe in ham-fisted assembly code). I like C# because it has the syntactic conciseness of C++ with the clear-headedness of the Pascal/Modula/Oberon tradition. It was invented by Anders Hejlsberg, the impementor of Turbo Pascal, whom Microsoft hired away from Borland. I wish there were C# compilers that were not tied to the Microsoft .NET environment; in principle, this is possible, although it might have to be a subset implementation. Even a non-object-oriented C# subset, for expressing algorithms, would be very nice to use on micros.
