-=> On 12 Sep 96  17:35:00 <=-
-=> Paul Edwards was heard to tell John Gardeniers <=-

    Hi Paul,

 PE> It issues warnings.  Even ISO C programs have warnings issued, for all
 PE> sorts of things, on different compilers.  A common one is if you go:
 PE> if (c = 0) printf("xyz");

 PE> It's legitimate ISO-C code, but most compilers will issue a warning
 PE> that the "c = 0" is suspicious.

    Why would that be considered suspicious?  Perfectly valid code
should never be considered suspicious.  In the end it's the
programmer who takes responsibility for his code, not the compiler.

 JG> take a peice of recent code and try to compile it with a K&R
 JG> compiler.

 PE> Of course that doesn't work.  The ANSI standard has been around since
 PE> 1989.  If you don't have access to a conforming C compiler, it's
 PE> because you're on a dead system.

    1989 is pretty recent when you stop to think about it.  I
wouldn't consider getting rid of say a car or bike just because it's
a few years old.  I certainly won't drop a programming language
without a much better reason.  I don't know if you can remember it
but when ANSI (not ISO) was working on the new standard for C there
was some discussion about giving it a new name (C+ was one
suggestion) due to the fact that it was effectively a new language.

    One thing I've noticed in the C echos, which I've never come
across elsewhere, is the way the standards are virtually a religion
for some (a few) of you.  I'm sure glad nothing like that has ever
happened in assembly language programming.  I think it must be born
in mind that the object of writing a program is to acheive a given
result, NOT to stick to any arbitrary standard.

 PE> On a non-ISO (ie dead) compiler.

    I though rash statements were my department!  No language or
compiler is ever dead while anyone is still using it.  Never!  I
have a language I wrote for the Plus/4 and C16 which is quite
powerful and very fast.  Although I'm the only person on the planet
using it I can assure you the language is not dead.

 JG> For me that isn't much of a problem, I just want to write a
 JG> Zmodem routine for Commodore 8 bit machines (C64, Plus/4 and C16).
 JG> It will be rewritten in assembler anyway so I really just need the

 PE> Ah, interesting!  I am doing work on PDPZM at the moment, and I have
 PE> gone to a lot of effort to keep the core Zmodem routines all using
 PE> 100% conforming C code, so that it can be ported.
 PE> Why do you need to rewrite that C code in assembler?  Does the
 PE> compiler produce really lousy code on (e.g.) PDPZM?  Can you show me
 PE> that?

    There are a number of factors to consider here.  The fact that I
don't have a C compiler (any variant) for the Commodores seems to be
a fairly important point :) On the Commodores, especially the C64,
speed of execution is paramount.  The C64 has no UART, except as a
software emulation, and has enourmous overheads in the interrupt
routines.  No compiler (any language) will ever be able to match a
good assem programmer (with emphasis on the "good").  Assembly is
more my native tongue, especially on the Commodores.  In my
application portability won't even be a consideration as the entire
program will be (and must be) machine specific.  The only comms
routines I have for these machines are Xmodem, Kermit and an Xmodem
variant of my own. None of those fit my requirements.

 JG> If only FREQing
 JG> was available to most of us. Unfortunately it's not. :(

 PE> It is.  Dial 02-9436-1785 and download DEVIL*.* from file area 1.

 PE> Well, I did say that you could FREQ RZSZPE and PDPZM from 3:711/934,
 PE> which DOES allow FREQs from unlisted systems, which means you CAN
 PE> FREQ.

    As I said, I was probably just unlucky with the systems I chose
to call :( My problems are: 1. I generally can't tell if a system will
allow me to FREQ until I've made the call.  2. I have (wait for
it...) a 2400 modem.  Every aspect of my computing is somewhat
behind the times :(

 JG> Obviously this wouldn't be a problem if I was a sysop.

 PE> Or you didn't have any morals and went and changed the name + address
 PE> in your FREQ program to make it look like a nodelisted system.  :-)
 PE> Or if you did have morals, and decided to use the 1:xxx/999 addresses
 PE> that are in the nodelist and set up for "new points".  Or just ask
 PE> people when they say it is available for FREQ, whether they accept
 PE> FREQs from unlisted systems.

    I do have some morals and have far too high a regard for Fidonet
to do that, there are enough people abusing the system already.  The
idea of asking the person who suggested the FREQ about access for
unlisted systems sounds good on the surface.  Unfortunately either
my Netmail messages to them, or their replies, don't get through, or
they simply don't respond to my query.  As you can possibly guess,
I've tried that approach already.

    As I'm getting way off topic here I'm wondering two things.  Who
is the moderator of this echo and when were the rules last posted?
I can't recall seeing the rules at all, although I've only been
reading this echo for about eight months ;)

    A closing comment: ISO would have me re-calibrate the tacho on
my bike so that it reads in radians per second, going by the last
time I had a look at the standards.  I can only assume that my RPM
tacho is an old leftover "K&R" unit :)

        John

... ISO - Idiotic standards organisation
--- FMail/386 1.02