Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Paul Edwards" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 08:44:01 +1000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 91 Message-ID: <100o9bl$3msfh$1@dont-email.me> References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <20250520065158.709@kylheku.com><100i2la$292le$1@dont-email.me><87a5770xjw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com><100j09o$2f04b$1@dont-email.me><87tt5ezx9y.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com><100j4t3$2foah$1@dont-email.me><87ldqqzfj0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com><100kak8$2q0s6$1@dont-email.me> <87a575zvmb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100o3sc$3ll6t$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 00:44:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b6e527ae96f39b01313061b79abe237"; logging-data="3895793"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192nPO7UMSwuKdupnFKIUkuJZ161fMWDeM=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:3O6RGAppVsOFlCtOzTfY2DAu4Go= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 "Paul Edwards" wrote in message news:100o3sc$3ll6t$1@dont-email.me... > "Keith Thompson" wrote in message > news:87a575zvmb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com... > > I can't practically change Visual Studio, but even then, > I would be open to negotiation, if someone were to > say "look, all the extant compilers support xyz, and > if you zap offset 156383 of cl.exe in Visual Studio, > it will be brought into line with all the other compilers, > and xyz is the way forward", then I would indeed > consider compiler changes. > > But I seriously doubt that xyz even exists, much less > that it could be "fixed" with a 1-byte zap. > > So while I don't want to say "I refuse to change > existing compilers", in practice, that is the case. Actually, that language is too strong. If a conclusion is reached that there is very strong evidence that "the way forward" is that the compiler itself needs to change, and I need to give up Microsoft C - so be it. I don't have any hard position on anything that I am aware of. Even the old mainframes - I may give them up as a relic. But before I do, I want to make sure they are graced with C90. It took decades before I created a 64-bit flavor of PDPCLIB. And I went to a lot of effort to try to keep the IBM PC BIOS alive. But one day there was a factor that made me decide to support 64-bit. I can't remember exactly, but I think it might have been the PDOS-generic concept, and I wasn't sure I could support 16-bit with it, and so instead I decided to do 64-bit first, as an abstraction, so that I could gain some experience, before heading back to 16-bit. Note that when I produced S/380 so that we could "push forward the mainframe technology", it was only then that I found that this "wasn't a thing that others were trying to do". I had seen others writing software for MVS 3.8J - lots of time spent on this - but that fitted into their sense of "nostalgia" somehow (even if it was new software), rather than "how close can we get to z/OS so that we can be a viable competitor?". I was running under an unstated assumption, and had incorrectly assumed that other people were operating a similar way, based on the fact that I could see MVS 3.8J becoming more and more viable every day. I don't have a fixed goal. I could be persuaded to become a Tibetan monk. Or in more realistic terms - I could be persuaded to just stick with gcc 3.2.3 and forget about Microsoft products, because "some of these features that will make a real difference need to go into the compiler, and you can't be dictated to by Microsoft". But just like the IBM PC BIOS, and 32-bit, I will cling to Microsoft etc C90-compliant compilers to the bitter end. Only when I see with my own eyes that I need to abandon Microsoft C 6.0 will I abandon Microsoft C 6.0. The compiler. Not the library. The library was abandoned a long time ago. Someone has updated gcc to include an IA-16 target. I have never expressed much interest in that. But under the right circumstances, I might find myself getting that code and back-porting it to gcc 3.2.3. As an example. Of a somewhat meandering goal. Perhaps you could say my goal is "to fix the issues that Jeff outlined in that original link I posted". But I don't want to tie myself down to that either. "grace hardware with C90 or close" might be a concrete goal too. BFN. Paul.