| | List |
| Subject: | Re: strdup |
| Poster: | Malcolm McLean |
| Date: | Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:28:10 -0500 |
| Related Postings: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 |
"Richard Bos" wrote in message
news:4603a8e5.269721617@news.xs4all.nl...
> "Malcolm McLean" wrote:
>
>> "Richard Bos" wrote in message
>
> [ Please do not over-strip attributions. ]
>
>> >> Probably so. But considering that C gets often labeled as "portable
>> >> assembly"
>> >
>> > Only by people who know neither C nor assembly very well.
>> >
>> But there's another qualification for knowing whether C is a "portable
>> assembly" or not.
>
> That does not make sense. If you know either C or assembly reasonably
> well, and the other even superficially, it becomes obvious that C is not
> any kind of assembler. No other qualifications are needed.
>
Let's say it alleged that a zebra is a "striped horse". There are various
biochemical differences between zerbras and horses, so this is a description
and not a definition. But is it useful?
What you need is an outgroup. If we take donkeys, mules, Eohippus and
unicorns as our outgroups then the description isn't much use. Zebras are
striped, but they are not noticeably more horse-like than these other
animals. However if we take tigers, dogs, and elephants as the outgroups
then the description is of considerable use.
If follows that to have a qualified opinion on whether C is a "portable
assembler" or not you need not only a knowledge of C and assembler, and
portability, but also of the other languages in general use to which C is
being compared.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
|
|