Searching \ for '[OT] C versus asy example' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/language/index.htm?key=c
Search entire site for: 'C versus asy example'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] C versus asy example'
1999\03\29@130603 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 08:50 03/29/99 -0500, Andy Kunz wrote:
>(To all socialists - sorry for being so capitalistic, but I don't like
>bread lines).

i guess you could call the development of C a socialistic undertaking --
after all, it was released for public use, a non-profit thing. :)

ge

1999\03\29@133451 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>i guess you could call the development of C a socialistic undertaking --
>after all, it was released for public use, a non-profit thing. :)

Sometimes people release things in order to get more people to use it.

A la Eudora, Netscape, MSIE.

Andy

  \-----------------/
   \     /---\     /
    \    |   |    /          Andy Kunz
     \   /---\   /           Montana Design
/---------+   +---------\     http://www.montanadesign.com
| /  |----|___|----|  \ |
\/___|      *      |___\/     Go fast, turn right,
                              and keep the wet side down!

1999\03\29@145104 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 13:28 03/29/99 -0500, Andy Kunz wrote:
>>i guess you could call the development of C a socialistic undertaking --
>>after all, it was released for public use, a non-profit thing. :)
>
>Sometimes people release things in order to get more people to use it.
>
>A la Eudora, Netscape, MSIE.

i guess that's not the case with C -- wasn't it at ATT? never heard of a
compiler from them :)

ge

1999\03\29@161953 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>i guess that's not the case with C -- wasn't it at ATT? never heard of a
>compiler from them :)

You never heard of the original Unix?  Who's compiler do you think they
used?  How about a 3B2?

Andy

  \-----------------/
   \     /---\     /
    \    |   |    /          Andy Kunz
     \   /---\   /           Montana Design
/---------+   +---------\     http://www.montanadesign.com
| /  |----|___|----|  \ |
\/___|      *      |___\/     Go fast, turn right,
                              and keep the wet side down!

1999\03\29@165925 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
> i guess you could call the development of C a socialistic undertaking --
> after all, it was released for public use, a non-profit thing. :)

Um.  "Typical socialist revisionism" ?  As I recall, C pretty much came
only with unix, and unix was available only to universtities and research
organizations, and wasn't free then, either.  If you were commercial and
wanted to run unix, you were pretty much out of luck until well after SUN
came along.  There WERE C compilers for CPM in the early 80s (that cost
money), and for MSDOS not too long after it came out.  I guess there was
"tiny C" and the portable C compiler, both of which were free but not too
good.  C was pretty commercial till the gnu project came along...

BillW

1999\03\29@172903 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 16:13 03/29/99 -0500, Andy Kunz wrote:
>>i guess that's not the case with C -- wasn't it at ATT? never heard of a
>>compiler from them :)
>
>You never heard of the original Unix?  Who's compiler do you think they
>used?  How about a 3B2?

you're probably right (in that they made a compiler), but i fail to see how
there might be an economical link between publishing the C specs and the
popularity (well, or not :) of unix and the ATT C compiler. after all, in
the examples you mentioned -- netscape navigator, ms explorer -- the free
"gift" is tied to a brand name and serves making the specific non-standard
features of each browser popular. i can't see something similar with ATT.
where's the economic point? the fact that many people started to write C
compiler (and others to use them) on a variety of processors and platforms
didn't contribute much to neither ATT's unix nor to ATT's C compiler sales
figures, probably.

ge

1999\03\29@174947 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 13:56 03/29/99 -0800, William Chops Westfield wrote:
>> i guess you could call the development of C a socialistic undertaking --
>> after all, it was released for public use, a non-profit thing. :)
>
>Um.  "Typical socialist revisionism" ?

nope. (i resist the temptation to say something inappropriate about
"typical <fill in your favorite enemy picture> thinking" :)

i didn't say that c =compiler= were free, but the =language=. AFAIK neither
of the compiler manufacturer for the c compiler you cite paid any royalties
for use of the language definition. the language definition is and was free
to use for anybody, including you and me. you can write a c compiler (if
you can :) and sell it (if you want :) and don't have to license it or pay
anybody for the use of the language. but this c specification was =not=
free to come up with -- i'm sure k&r (and whoever was involved) spent a lot
of work with it. the results of this work were given away for free (not the
compilers, note, but the language) -- AFAIK including the part of the
standard libs which was written in c (but i'm not sure on this one).

ge

1999\03\29@180404 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   i didn't say that c =compiler= were free, but the =language=. AFAIK
   neither of the compiler manufacturer for the c compiler you cite paid
   any royalties for use of the language definition. the language
   definition is and was free to use for anybody, including you and me.

What languages AREN'T free by that definition?  Smalltalk and Java?  A
couple others that are so obscure no one uses them?  Are any assembly
languages so controlled that you can't write an assembler for them?

BillW

1999\03\29@183001 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 15:03 03/29/99 -0800, William Chops Westfield wrote:
>What languages AREN'T free by that definition?  Smalltalk and Java?  A
>couple others that are so obscure no one uses them?  Are any assembly
>languages so controlled that you can't write an assembler for them?

did i say that there are some which are not free? right from the top of my
head, i can't come up with one. (but for example the i2c bus protocol is
something similar, and it could just as well be free -- but it isn't.)

in any case, just because all of them (or at least all that i can think of)
are free does not make it less free. which was my point -- it's free, no
licensing required.

ge

1999\03\30@080707 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>"gift" is tied to a brand name and serves making the specific non-standard
>features of each browser popular. i can't see something similar with ATT.

But the non-standardness has backfired on BOTH of them.  This is why "plain
vanilla" browsers are becoming more popular.

>where's the economic point? the fact that many people started to write C
>compiler (and others to use them) on a variety of processors and platforms
>didn't contribute much to neither ATT's unix nor to ATT's C compiler sales
>figures, probably.

AT&T is too big a company _not_ to profit from it.  One of my university
professors was an AT&T employee.  He worked full-time at the U, but was
paid by AT&T.  Even though AT&T was being "nice" and "education-oriented"
it still put them in the position of being able to select the creme de la
creme when it came time for the annual corporate recruitment drive.  That
this professor also had access to the students as their advisor made it
that much better for AT&T.

The fact that they went into the educational market just backs this up.

Andy

  \-----------------/
   \     /---\     /
    \    |   |    /          Andy Kunz
     \   /---\   /           Montana Design
/---------+   +---------\     http://www.montanadesign.com
| /  |----|___|----|  \ |
\/___|      *      |___\/     Go fast, turn right,
                              and keep the wet side down!

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...