| Author |
Message |
|
Micha
#1 / 17
|
 K&R1 vs. K&R2 Just out of curiousity, how do the two differ? I already have a copy
of K&R1, copyrighted (choke!) 1978. Is this still current and
applicable, or should I just spring for K&R2?
TIA
|
| Sat, 21 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
|
Dan P
#2 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2
Quote: >Just out of curiousity, how do the two differ? I already have a copy
>of K&R1, copyrighted (choke!) 1978. Is this still current and
>applicable, or should I just spring for K&R2?
Go for K&R2. K&R1 presents mostly a historical interest nowadays. Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
|
| Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Lawrence Kir
#3 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2 Quote:
>Just out of curiousity, how do the two differ?
K&R2 describes the ANSI standard C language. Quote: > I already have a copy
>of K&R1, copyrighted (choke!) 1978. Is this still current and
>applicable, or should I just spring for K&R2?
While the languages they describe are similar overall, there are some key differences (such as ANSI prototypes) and some more subtle differences (such as integral promotion rules). You really should be using K&R2 these days. K&R1 is going to land you in trouble on an ANSI C compiler, or if you're trying to read ANSI C code. --
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
|
| Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Michael Fu
#4 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2
Quote: >Just out of curiousity, how do the two differ? I already have a copy
>of K&R1, copyrighted (choke!) 1978. Is this still current and
>applicable, or should I just spring for K&R2?
Depending on your money situation, it's probably worth it to go ahead and get a copy of K&R2...it covers ANSI C. Related question: I've heard (in the Jargon File, and a couple of other
places) that K&R1 is generally more highly regarded than K&R2. Anyone
out there with both of them care to comment? I have K&R2, but have never
seen K&R1. I can't imagine what would be so different between the two
editions. Different writing style or something?
Mike
|
| Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Ralph Silverm
#5 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2
: >Just out of curiousity, how do the two differ? I already have a copy
: >of K&R1, copyrighted (choke!) 1978. Is this still current and
: >applicable, or should I just spring for K&R2?
: Depending on your money situation, it's probably worth it to go ahead
: and get a copy of K&R2...it covers ANSI C.
: Related question: I've heard (in the Jargon File, and a couple of other
: places) that K&R1 is generally more highly regarded than K&R2. Anyone
: out there with both of them care to comment? I have K&R2, but have never
: seen K&R1. I can't imagine what would be so different between the two
: editions. Different writing style or something?
: Mike
--
******************begin r.s. response****************
as indicated in posting ...
k&r1 dates from 1978 !!!
( present author )
first ( ? ) programming employment
( 1980 ) involved 'c' language
...
software chief provided a copy
of k&r1, a unix terminal
and access to unix manuals
( pdp 11 stuff ... )
...
k&r1 is great ( and now the basis
of 'traditional 'c' ) ...
k&r1 volume is now an immensely
valuable collector item, one hears ...
particularly in far east !
the 'c' programming language
brian kernighan and dennis ritchie
( from memory !!! )
ed. 1
.
******************end r.s. response******************
Ralph Silverman
|
| Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Vesa Karvone
#6 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2 Hello mr Silverman,
it seems like you added c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p, c.l.a.x86
to this c.l.c thread. Please, could you consider limiting
your answers to those newsgroups that either actually deal
with the issue or were the source of the original post.
I bet that most people in c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p and
c.l.a.x86 don't read the newsgroups so that they can
hear about K&R.
There was nothing wrong with your answer. The only
thing, that I object to, is your attempt at spam.
Regards, Vesa Karvonen
|
| Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Paul Mesk
#7 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2 Quote: >Hello mr Silverman, >it seems like you added c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p, c.l.a.x86
>to this c.l.c thread. Please, could you consider limiting
>your answers to those newsgroups that either actually deal
>with the issue or were the source of the original post.
>I bet that most people in c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p and
>c.l.a.x86 don't read the newsgroups so that they can
>hear about K&R.
>There was nothing wrong with your answer. The only
>thing, that I object to, is your attempt at spam.
>Regards, Vesa Karvonen
Actually, I thought it was quite on topic for c.l.a.x86. The message stated that K&R1 is from '78 and that it is the bible for c programmers. It's a well intended heart-warmer for us Assembly programmers if you
think about it.
Enough of this. Let's continue about port usage on the Pro, protection
mechanisms, pipe lining, branch prediction, fpu tricks, self-modifying
code etc, etc.
Guess that was unheard of in 1978 (how vicious! hehehe }:-> )
"Tough talk for a guy who was fooled into believing he
was in real mode by a mere memory manager."
|
| Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Vesa Karvone
#8 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2 Quote:
> >Hello mr Silverman, [snip] > >I bet that most people in c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p and > >c.l.a.x86 don't read the newsgroups so that they can > >hear about K&R. > >There was nothing wrong with your answer. The only
> >thing, that I object to, is your attempt at spam.
[snip]
> Actually, I thought it was quite on topic for c.l.a.x86. The message
> stated that K&R1 is from '78 and that it is the bible for c
> programmers.
How does this relate to MS-DOS programming or x86 assembly language? I just re-read the entire thread, but couldn't find a single
reference to MS-DOS programming, x86 assembly language and
not even to C++. Not a single word. The discussion was
entirely limited to two revisions of a book written by the
well known authors. Exactly what the subject line said.
Quote: > It's a well intended heart-warmer for us Assembly programmers if you
> think about it.
Sorry, I can't see the connection. What I can see is 3 or more threads that are being crossposted to these newsgroups and have generally little or no relation except to one of those newsgroups: c.l.c. Quote: > Enough of this. Let's continue about port usage on the Pro, protection
> mechanisms, pipe lining, branch prediction, fpu tricks, self-modifying
> code etc, etc.
I'll second to that. --
==> Vesa Karvonen
An optimizing programmer can always beat a C programmer.
|
| Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Craig Franc
#9 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2 Quote:
>>Hello mr Silverman, >>it seems like you added c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p, c.l.a.x86
>>to this c.l.c thread. Please, could you consider limiting
>>your answers to those newsgroups that either actually deal
>>with the issue or were the source of the original post.
>>I bet that most people in c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p and
>>c.l.a.x86 don't read the newsgroups so that they can
>>hear about K&R.
>>There was nothing wrong with your answer. The only
>>thing, that I object to, is your attempt at spam.
>>Regards, Vesa Karvonen
>Actually, I thought it was quite on topic for c.l.a.x86. The message
>stated that K&R1 is from '78 and that it is the bible for c
>programmers.
>It's a well intended heart-warmer for us Assembly programmers if you
>think about it.
We all know that bashing C is a favorite pastime over in x86. K&R2 better reflects the language in question, and it came out in 1988. Quote: >Enough of this. Let's continue about port usage on the Pro, protection >mechanisms, pipe lining, branch prediction, fpu tricks, self-modifying >code etc, etc. >Guess that was unheard of in 1978 (how vicious! hehehe }:-> )
I think you should study the roots of your beloved hardware a little better. The IBM/360 came out in 1964, and it had hardware protection built right in. The CDC 6600 pipelined instructions, and it came out in 1964, as well. It also had parallel execution units, and, I believe, a very crude form of branch prediction that operated on the principle that most tests fail. It had a simple load and store instruction set and would be considered very RISC like. You could get 128-bit floating point units on an IBM in 1968 (I don't know how many "tricks" you could do) and self modifying code has always been around, and is generally thought to be an easily abused thing. Now go have fun twiddling your bits and loading and saving your registers! :-) --
Craig
Manchester, NH
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and
won't change the subject -- Winston Churchill
|
| Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Paul Mesk
#10 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2 Quote: >We all know that bashing C is a favorite pastime over in
>x86. K&R2 better reflects the language in question, and
>it came out in 1988.
How did you ever come up with that thought? Quote: >>Enough of this. Let's continue about port usage on the Pro, protection >>mechanisms, pipe lining, branch prediction, fpu tricks, self-modifying >>code etc, etc. >>Guess that was unheard of in 1978 (how vicious! hehehe }:-> )
>I think you should study the roots of your beloved hardware
>a little better. The IBM/360 came out in 1964, and it had
>hardware protection built right in. The CDC 6600 pipelined
>instructions, and it came out in 1964, as well. It also had
>parallel execution units, and, I believe, a very crude form
>of branch prediction that operated on the principle that most
>tests fail. It had a simple load and store instruction set and
>would be considered very RISC like. You could get 128-bit
>floating point units on an IBM in 1968 (I don't know how many
>"tricks" you could do) and self modifying code has always been
>around, and is generally thought to be an easily abused thing.
>Now go have fun twiddling your bits and loading and saving
>your registers! :-)
Well... my signature says it all :-) "Tough talk for a guy who was fooled into believing he
was in real mode by a mere memory manager."
|
| Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Michael Tippac
#11 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2 Vesa Karvonen:
Quote: > >>Hello mr Silverman, > >>it seems like you added c.l.c++, c.o.msdos.p, c.l.a.x86
> >>to this c.l.c thread.
Not only to this one, I might add. Paul Mesken:
Quote: > >Actually, I thought it was quite on topic for c.l.a.x86. The message > >stated that K&R1 is from '78 and that it is the bible for c > >programmers. > >It's a well intended heart-warmer for us Assembly programmers if you
> >think about it.
Craig Franck: Quote: > We all know that bashing C is a favorite pastime over in
> x86. K&R2 better reflects the language in question, and
> it came out in 1988.
Bashing C != bashing "C pushers". Most people "over in x86" are doing some C as well, I guess. I second Vesa Karvonen on his complaint to r.s. Nice to
see that I'm not the only one who finds this annoying!
He (Ralph) should either fix his newsreader or, if this
doesn't seem to be the problem, [insert some three/four
letter words here, be creative!].
BTW: Just thinking the whole wide world had to care about
#define true (this!=that) indeed smells like some sort of
a religion. This is dedicated to all the lemmings following
up the r.s. trolls, unless they're merely unable to read
a Usenet post header, a sad thing for people dealing with
C ("Oooohhhh!") and UN*X ( "Aaahhhh!" ) all the time, isn't
it?
Now I'm feeling much better ;-)
Paul Mesken:
Quote: > >Enough of this. Let's continue about port usage on the Pro, protection
> >mechanisms, pipe lining, branch prediction, fpu tricks, self-modifying
> >code etc, etc.
This is true for c.l.a.x but not for c.l.c, I guess? ;-) He obviously forgot to mention ape shit and copyright law
as well as getting a certain person laid. :-(((
BTW: Craig, your're right, the concepts of memory
protection, paging and so on actually do have their
roots in the sixtees, at least they've been implemented
first those times AFAIK.
F'up set, let's end this troll chain!
Regards
Wuschel
|
| Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Lawrence Kir
#12 / 17
|
K&R1 vs. K&R2
Quote: >Actually, I thought it was quite on topic for c.l.a.x86. The message
>stated that K&R1 is from '78 and that it is the bible for c
>programmers.
It was between 1978 and 1988/89, maybe a few years after while ANSI compilers were being introduced. These days it is mainly of historical interest. Quote: >It's a well intended heart-warmer for us Assembly programmers if you
>think about it.
You mean you actually understand what Ralph is saying? ;-) --
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
|
| Wed, 01 Sep 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2
|
[ 17 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] |
|
