using an FPGA to emulate a vintage computer
in [FPGA]
|
From: Peter Flass on 9 Mar 2010 16:56 Michael Wojcik wrote: > Peter Flass wrote: >> Michael Wojcik wrote: >>> Peter Flass wrote: >>>> Hey! C's finally caught up to PL/I. Only took them 50 years, and then >>>> of course all the features are just tacked-on in true C fashion, instead >>>> of thought-through. >>> Well, that's rather insulting to the members of WG14, who spent a >>> decade designing those features. Fortunately, they published the >>> Rationale showing that, in fact, they were thought through.[1] And a >>> great deal of documentation describing the process is available in the >>> archives.[2] >>> >>> If you'd care to show why you think otherwise, perhaps there would be >>> some grounds for debate. >> "The flexible array must be last"? > > Doing otherwise would break existing code. WG14's remit is to maintain > upward compatibility. Yes, as I said, they probably did the best they could with what they had to work with. > >> "sizeof applied to the structure ignores the array but counts any >> padding before it"? > > I have no idea what you're quoting there. That phrase doesn't seem to > be present in my copy of the standard. Same reference as above, a bit farther down. [whatever the link I was sent was, it got clipped somewhere] > >> C is a collection of ad-hoc ideas. WG14 may have put a great deal of >> thought into how to extend it without breaking the existing mosh, but >> that's my point, it's still a mosh. > > If that was your point, then I have to say it was rather ill-expressed. > Most of my points are ill-expressed. I do the best I can with what I've got to work with, too.
From: Michael Wojcik on 9 Mar 2010 17:59 [Followups restricted to a.f.c.] Greg Menke wrote: > Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> writes: >> Greg Menke wrote: >>> C++ does make for a nice "type-safe linking" C compiler. >> Except that it's not a C implementation, and so is not a C compiler at >> all. >> >> C and C++ are different languages. > > Perhaps so, yet it is possible to compile C programs with a C++ Only some C programs. And then you are not compiling C programs with a C++ implementation; you are compiling C++ programs that happen to be written in the common subset of C and C++. > and > observe some benefits relating to better compile-time and link-time type > checking. There's nothing to prevent a conforming C implementation from making similar checks, and some do. And any decent implementation, combined with a modicum of discipline, makes this type checking unnecessary, because the implementation's normal diagnostics will catch everything C++-style name mangling would. For better quality assurance, use real tools like Splint. > One can then disassemble the object modules created by C vs > C++ compilers and observe the distinct similarity of with respect to the > runtime structure. Irrelevant. Many language implementations produce similar output. > Which is why it "makes for a nice C compiler", not "is a better C > compiler". I'm well familiar with this argument - I've heard it since circa 1990, if memory serves. I'm not convinced. Write C for C implementations, and C++ for C++ implementations.
From: Michael Wojcik on 9 Mar 2010 17:59 [Followups restricted to a.f.c.] Greg Menke wrote: > Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> writes: > >> Greg Menke wrote: >>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> C is a collection of ad-hoc ideas. WG14 may have put a great deal of >>>> thought into how to extend it without breaking the existing mosh, but >>>> that's my point, it's still a mosh. >>> iostream formatting operators, because we really need more operator >>> overloading and no enhancements are too bizarre in service of making >>> everything, (for particular values of everything), specialized? >> How fortunate, then, that C does not have them. > > You are quoting out of context. Nonsense. I quoted all of your message up to that point, and the relevant part of Peter's. > The original topic to which I followed up via the above quote was > related to the sometimes "undesigned" appearance of C++. Peter did not mention C++. My message, to which he was responding, did not mention C++. I don't see a single reference to C++ in any of the ancestor messages, until your own. > The particular > quote above suggests C was already a collection of ad-hoc ideas, so that > C++ is not a substantial departure from existing practice. An odd thing to "suggest" in a conversation about C. Perhaps you should have noted that you had decided to switch to a different topic.
From: Eric Chomko on 10 Mar 2010 14:30
On Mar 9, 1:42 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > Greg Menke wrote: > > > C++ does make for a nice "type-safe linking" C compiler. > > Except that it's not a C implementation, and so is not a C compiler at > all. > > C and C++ are different languages. > There is a subset/superset relationship between the two. Not unlike the 8080 and Z-80, except IMO, the Z-80 is better than the 8080 and C is better than C++. |