Jump to: navigation, search

Rjh: re your last change - from what I understand there was more to it than that - was the unofficial K&R standard not also determined by AT&T manuals etc? That understanding is why I omitted a specific reference and left it (more vaguely than I'd like to) at "writings". --Netocrat 15:30, 16 January 2006 (GMT)

Spelling diversion

Kst: supercedes is a valid spelling for supersedes, even in the US according to Kenneth G. Wilson's Guide, and one that I'm more familiar with outside of the US. --Netocrat 09:14, 16 February 2006 (GMT)

Kenneth G. Wilson's Guide says: Supersede is the overwhelming preference of Edited English, although supercede does occur in print.

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary shows "supercede" only as a variant of "supersede".

I'm reasonably certain that "supersede" is the preferred form.

That last comment was from me; I thought it would sign and date it automatically. -- kst

Right, supercede's a spelling that's ingrained for me but it does seem to be non-preferred, if acceptable. Here's an interesting link on the topic. Btw, a sequence of four tildes is converted into a timestamped signature on save - so typically two dashes followed by four tildes is used. If you're using the default MediaWiki skin and a graphical browser, you should see a signature button in the blue toolbox above the edit box that will insert it so you don't need to remember. --Netocrat 18:10, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

Broken link

This link gives a "403 Forbidden":

Anyone know if it is still available somewhere on the net? In that case, please update the link. Ahy1 12:30, 1 September 2006 (BST)

I have obtained a copy of Dan's file from the wayback machine and am now hosting it. If anyone is in contact with Dan please let him know. --Flash Gordon 15:43, 3 October 2006 (BST)

Herbert Schildt's book

I haven't read this book but have heard enough scathing reviews of it that I don't think that this wiki - being associated with comp.lang.c, where the book is held in utter disdain - should promote it as a potential purchase. True, it's a cheap means of getting the Standard, but it also funds an (by all reports) incompetent venture. I think that we should remove all reference to this book from the article. Other opinions? --Netocrat 16:53, 13 September 2007 (BST)

It lets people get the Standard. You can ignore Schildt's annotations if you only need the Standard - which is why I put it up in the first place. I, too, haven't read the book yet but I plan to for the Standard, and there COULD be some useful annotations that are not wrong (otherwise he would not be a good programming textbook writer elsewhen). - Andlabs 01:37, 14 September 2007 (BST)
You can get drafts of the standard for FREE, which, AFAIK, are more useful than the Schildt, as it won't mis-lead you the way the book would. In any case, we shouldn't be promoting one vendor over another; I've changed the amazon link to a link to En.Wikipedia's Booksources page, which has links to literally hundreds of sources, which is a better choice. I also support removing it as a suggestion here, but we probably should make a page, maybe Schildt, which links to the rebuttals. -- JesseW 03:57, 14 September 2007 (BST)
You are missing the point - you can get the Schildt book and ignore his annotations if all you want is the Standard. Cover them with tape or something or just leave them alone. There may be some differences between the Draft and the Final Standard. I think the Draft had realloc NOT preserve original values in memory, and the ISO one does: realloc(mem, 400) where mem is malloc(200 * sizeof (T)) and mem[0] = 4; the draft would have mem[0] be undefined; the ISO would have mem[0] == 4. - Andlabs 13:32, 14 September 2007 (BST)
I don't believe that you are supported in that thought - the draft specifies for realloc that "The contents of the object shall be unchanged up to the lesser of the new and old sizes." There might, however, be other significant differences between the draft and the final standard. Anyway, I'm willing to leave in the reference to the book so longs as it is accompanied by a warning as to the low quality of the annotations. I would be happy for JesseW to make a Schildt page but do not feel qualified to do it myself, being ignorant of the contents of his books. --Netocrat 14:15, 14 September 2007 (BST)
That is what K&R says, and it is based on the Draft AFAIK. You can make the page. I've seen reviews of The Annotated ANSI C Standard, but I've read many of his other books (C/C++ Programmer's Reference, which has many wonderful chapters on both languages' Standard Libraries; C: The Complete Reference, C99 edition, which contains a nice C subset NOT IN YACC; Java: A Beginner's Guide) and they are not "bullschildt". It may be ignorance on his part for the annotations in that book. I'd also like to say that the Library section from the Standard can be received as part of X3J11 member P. J. Plauger's "The Standard C Library." He headed the Library division for a while, and I don't know what he does now (but he is still in X3J11). - Andlabs 18:52, 14 September 2007 (BST)
Er, there's no way that K&R can be based on any version of the Draft -- K&R is the original description of the language; the whole standardization process started years later. How do you know that his other books don't contain the same sort of errors as this one; they weren't obvious errors, they were just significant. Are you knowledgeable enough to identify such subtle errors? JesseW 03:58, 18 September 2007 (BST)
K&R1 predates the standard by a long way, K&R2 predates the standard by about a year, is based on a draft of the standard, and has "ANSI C" emblazed in large friendly letters on the front cover. As to Shildt, do a search for him on comp.lang.c and you will find the knowledgeable regulars say that the only book of his that has ever been worth buying is the Annotated C Standard, and that *only* for the copy of the standard. You will also find references to reviews of his other books pointing out masses of errors. --Flash Gordon 18:22, 18 September 2007 (BST)
Ah yes, it was K&R2 I was talking about. I haven't been here for a while, but I just wanted to check in. I do have a copy of the K&R1, if anyone wants any details. I don't think his other books are so terrible (C: A Complete Reference did give me some compiler issues, but I learned most of Java from him), but I respect your opinion. I have yet to find an error in his annotations. - Andlabs 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools