jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen N.E. Bos) (09/14/89)
In article <2614@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: > > Factual Error #1: "pseudo" is incorrect: THINK C's object extensions >support paradigms which are fundamental to object orientation: runtime >binding, and inhertiance. > > Factual Error #2: ANSI C is the next standard, not C++. > But, as far as I know, THINK 4.0 _does_ compile ANSI C, isn't it? Does it also compile ANSI without the C++ extensions? -- | | "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what | | Jurjen N.E. Bos | it might appear to others that what you were or might | | | might have been was not otherwise than what you had | | jurjen@cwi.nl | been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." |
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (09/15/89)
In article <8404@boring.cwi.nl> jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen N.E. Bos) writes: >But, as far as I know, THINK 4.0 _does_ compile ANSI C, isn't it? Yes, except for "const" and "volatile" and some other things that slip my mind; nevertheless, THINK C 4.0 is more conformant than a number of C compilers that claim ANSI conformance. R> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "There is no personal problem which cannot be solved by sufficient application of high explosives." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shebanow@Apple.COM (Andrew Shebanow) (09/16/89)
Although I think that Think C is a good product, saying that it is ANSI conformant is like saying a motorcycle is a car, except that it has two wheels missing. Not having const implemented is a major mistake - you lose all of the type checking ability (sorry, doing a #define of const to an empty comment does not solve this problem). I couldn't care less if Think C scored higher on some test - if it doesn't have const, it just ain't ANSI. Andy Shebanow Developer Technical Support Apple Computer Disclaimer: these opionions are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect on Apple Computer, etc etc etc.