Re: 80-column mode with Aztec C SYS files?

["Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net>]

"Zaleski" <skierpaul@yahoo.com> wrote:

>IMHO, it's nice seeing the questions and results in an open forum in case 
>someone else runs into a similar problem in the future. Likewise, sometimes 
>multiple contributions can really facilitate a
project, and source code snippets are always nice.

As you know I agree with you Paul. However, as I said other usenet users may 
not see things the same way especially when it comes to posting Aztec C 
source code... the following two posts are the type of reaction that makes 
me feel inclined to refrain from posting source regardless of how helpful 
IMNSHO... do I really need the aggravation???

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lyricalnanoha" <lyricalnanoha@usotsuki.hoshinet.org>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: K&R C?

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Bill Buckels wrote:

> And I am not really offended. What I think is silly is to preclude trying 
> a
> good compiler because it is old and not ANSI. ANSI support is a very silly
> reason to condemn a compiler or rather to solely use to chose one compiler
> over another. Very very silly. Tsk tsk tsk.

Using K&R C when ANSI C is available is like using INTBASIC on the Apple
//e.

(For the benefit of non-Apple users here, INTBASIC is the 6K BASIC
interpreter from the original Apple ][.  Faster, less buggy, yes...but
much more frustrating to work with because of its limitations and
oddnesses.)

-uso.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lyricalnanoha" <lyricalnanoha@usotsuki.hoshinet.org>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: K&R C?

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Bill Buckels wrote:

>
> "lyricalnanoha" <lyricalnanoha@usotsuki.hoshinet.org> wrote:
>> I haven't had a need to use K&R for anything.
>
> That's because you haven't tried any of my Aztec C distributions yet 
> uso...
> if you did then you might have a need to use K&R and Aztec C for
> everything:)
>
> Aztec C Apple II DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 8, C64, and CP/M 80 compilers might be
> worth a try...

In the 6502 realm CC65/CA65 has served my purposes fine.  In the Z80
realm, Hitech had an ANSI compiler which is still out and about (and I
think it's still commonly used in MSX circles).

I honestly don't see what advantage Aztec could have other than in library
support, and even that isn't impossible to replicate.

-uso.