Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!jdickson
From: jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: SAS Include FILES from HELL, film at 11pm.
Message-ID: <1991Feb7.234141.28948@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 7 Feb 91 23:41:41 GMT
References: <4034@orbit.cts.com> <1991Feb7.192644.25098@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <1991Feb7.220346.29943@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 78

In article <1991Feb7.220346.29943@Neon.Stanford.EDU> espie@flamingo.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) writes:
>In article <1991Feb7.192644.25098@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes:
>>In article <4034@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>>>
>>>manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes) writes:
>>>>I recently purchased SAS/C and kissed goodbye the MANX C compiler that 
>>>>I have used for years.
>>>
>>>I'm interested in why you switched to SAS.  I have been using Manx for years
>>>as well, and i get nausea when i try and use SAS.  I was just wondering about
>>>your reasons.
>>>> 
>[sigs deleted]
>>
>>	YEAH! RIGHT ON. I use MANX too. I have ever since 1985. I don't
>>like having to conform to ANSI. Unfortunatly, MANX rid 16 bit ints and
>>adopted the ANSI way of doing things. Wish they could release a new version
>>in the spirit of 3.6 for us non comformists. Until then, I'm going to continue
>>using 3.6 and my 5.x updates will just collect dust.
>>
>>					Jeff
>
>Ok, this is a flame (kind of). I don't like the idea that I chose to
>``have to conform to ANSI''.
>What do you mean ``having to conform to ANSI'' ?

	Ok. You did not choose ANSI (at least not all of you). SAS offered
ANSI 'C' before MANX did. That was fine. Those who wanted strictor type
checking chose SAS, those who didn't stuck with/chose MANX. Then for some
strange reason, almost like ANSI compatibility had been proclaimed thee
thing, MANX decides to pull the rug out from under its many faithful users.
Sure, MANX has some kind of compatability command line switch that is
"supposed" to emulate their 3.6 - but it doesn't.

	I apologise, because now-a-days new 'C' compiler buyers don't have
a choice. I'm just mad, because I liked the way it isn't anymore. 


>ANSI is NOT something you
>have to conform to. It just means you CAN do stricter type-checking. You
>don't usually have to. The SAS/C compiler mostly returns warnings if
>you indulge in type-punning, you can ignore them if you want, you can
>even turn them off. On the other hand, you get the benefit of having
>prototypes, which means you don't HAVE to use dumb castings the like of
>sqrt((double)2) or (worse) float x = 2.57; y = sin((double)x);
>You don't spend hours on stupid bugs because the compiler tells you when
>you have done things wrong (when you INTEND to do things the wrong way,
>you still CAN, but you'll get warned)---and don't tell me you don't indulge
>in stupid bugs from time to time.
>Spare us the macho part about ``real programmers don't need prototypes. Or
>I've got the right to be non-conformist.''
>Did it ever occur to you that everybody (UNIX too) is switching to ANSI C ?
>There might be a good reason to that... Doesn't it bother you that your
>source code will soon be a fossile, and is much less portable than ANSI-like
>C right now ?

	Portable to what? Really doubt that portability is an issue with
Amiga specific source code.

>
>BTW, SAS/C supports 16 bit integers, as well as several models of floating
>point. And there is something ANSI provides which traditional C has not:
>if you use only single precision floating point variables, computations
>will get done in single precision, instead of converting everything to
>double first; the old traditional C efficiency-loophole.
>
	Yeah, that's good.

>You want to make us ANSI-C programmers feel like we wear a straightjacket.
>This is wrong. ANSI-C means freedom. Traditional C means a high dependency
>on the machine you use. Granted, you can get rid of such dependencies,
>but in that case you don't need the dubious ``benefits'' of ANSI-C.
>--
>    Marc Espie (espie@flamingo.stanford.edu)

	"BENEFIT" is in the eye of the beholder.

				Jeff