Re: Opinions about a book

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Mark McIntyre said:
> 
>> That is one of your stupider posts.
> 
> Possibly, but it's still brighter than the brightest posts of some
people I 
> could mention but won't

Absolutely... :-)

>> Secondly while *you* may be stuck with tools that only sup****t C89,
> 
> If by "tools" you mean "C compilers", well, yes, it's true that I don't 
> have a C99-conforming implementation. But then neither do most people. 

I believe you're being disingenuously pedantic.

I strongly suspect you'll find that most people *do* have access to an 
implementation that sup****ts a great many C99 features -not all of them, 
but a great many.

>In 
> any case, this isn't about *me* or *you*. It's about *most* people. 
> Neither you nor I is, are, or am most people.

However its my belief that we're both essentially typical. I don't 
personally think I'm some sort of special case anyway.

>> and/or be so amazingly crossplatform that you have to stick to the C89
>> subset that's widely available, most of us actually have access to
tools
>> sup****ting many features of C99 on enough platforms to be useful.
> 
> And in what way is this interesting to most people? I still don't get
it.

Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension instead of pedantry.

Oh wait - you mean that even though C99 features exist and are 
available, you believe they're inherently uninteresting, useless and to 
be shunned. We're getting to the crux here, I think. The basic message 
is indeed that RJH dislikes C99 and won't use it for reasons of pure 
personal bias. Correct?

-- 
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>