[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)

Subject: Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
From: kenl@compassnet.com.au (Ken Lee)
Date: 1999/08/20
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers, comp.arch.embedded, comp.sys.apple2
Organization: Optus Internet
References: <rpvf9p$0$37nspbj$n2p@corp.supernews.com> <7o1oop$h9n@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com> <37A4BBCD.1F74@sunsouthwest.com> <37A4B241.40FDE861@plano.net> <37c704ea.19321437@news.digex.net> <7o8d6m$26ld@enews2.newsguy.com> <qhbtcoausu.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7o8pbf$4rd@edrn.newsguy.com> <brucehoult-0508991607030001@bruce.bgh> <hshubs-0508991217370001@user-33qscke.dialup.mindspring.com> <DUoq3.50363$jl.33800040@newscontent-01.sprint.ca> <37ad24ec.3277863@nnrp.gol.com> <7ohnaf$fm0$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca> <37adebc2.4089160@news.shuswap.net> <37BB2FAA.D5A74397@egg.chips.and.spam.com> <37bb3ef9.24418394@news.shuswap.net> <37BBE6BF.7825576E@egg.chips.and.spam.com>

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:13:03 +0200, fungus
<fungus@egg.chips.and.spam.com> wrote:

>
>
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> 
>>      I believe it would be a conforming implementation of C to have
>> short, int, and long all be 16 bits. In that case, using unsigned long
>> wouldn't be enough.
>> 
>
>Bzzzzzzt!
>
>Longs are always at least 32 bits.
Not always true. On the Z World C it's 24bits - although this could
reflect the quality of the C compiler rather than any standard

Ken.

References:
- Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986
  - From: "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
- Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986
  - From: mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier)
- Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986
  - From: bill_h <bill_h@sunsouthwest.com>
- Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986
  - From: Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net>
- Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986
  - From: jschmitz@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz)
- Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986
  - From: rmk@toad.rmkhome.com
- not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com>
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: Charles Eicher <ceicher@inav.net>
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: brucehoult@pobox.com (Bruce Hoult)
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: hshubs@mindspring.com (Howard S Shubs)
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net>
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: prs@gol.com (Peter Stephenson)
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: gillies@cs.ubc.ca (Donald Gillies)
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko)
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: fungus <fungus@egg.chips.and.spam.com>
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko)
- Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
  - From: fungus <fungus@egg.chips.and.spam.com>

Prev by Date: Re: A few (more) IIgs questions.
Next by Date: Re: MP3 decoder?
Previous by thread: Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
Next by thread: Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread