On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Phil Pennock wrote:
> That was an uncalled for insult. Sorry. The buffer limit has a trivial
> fix which causes no compatibility problems. And for the original design
> criteria, it probably was reasonable.
Oh, I wasn't expecting an apology (which is of course accepted). Maybe I
should have used a smiley.
C is not a nice language to program in when you are dealing with varying
length text strings. It's been called a high-level assembler, and in
many ways that is true. But we seem to be stuck with it for the moment
as the main language of implementation for portable software.
Maybe I should have started by writing a better string-handling package,
but I knew less at the time.
> > As someone who has never knowingly actually used any Microsoft software,
> > I am Deeply Insulted.
>
> You lucky $#%@&*@%! How in the name of all that's holy have you managed
> to get away with that? *sobs*
I used to program IBM mainframes (and occasionally PDP-11s and
Interdatas). I then worked on various Acorn kit. Now I program for Unix,
and leave Microsoft (& Macs) to my expert colleagues.
Easy, really! :-)
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
