
www.Usenet.com
Group Index
Comp Thread Archive from Usenet.com
Re: why still use C?
- __From__: ozbear
- __Subject__: Re: why still use C?
- __Date__: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:55:21 -0600
On 25 Nov 2003 04:35:10 GMT, Hans-Bernhard Broeker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.lang.c.moderated Eric Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is IBM really suggesting that new financial programs be written in C?
>
>Let me answer this with another question: Would you prefer that they
>forever keep being written in COBOL, instead?
>
<snip>
Yes
Oz
- Re: Decimal Floating Point (was Re: why still use C?), (continued)
- Re: Decimal Floating Point (was Re: why still use C?),
glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: why still use C?,
Hans-Bernhard Broeker
- Re: why still use C?,
Richard Bos
- Re: why still use C?,
Fergus Henderson
- Re: Decimal Floating Point (was Re: why still use C?),
Mike Cowlishaw
- Re: why still use C?,
P.J. Plauger
- Re: why still use C?,
Dan Pop
- Re: Decimal Floating Point (was Re: why still use C?),
Thad Smith
- Re: why still use C?,
Thad Smith
- Re: why still use C?,
Eric Backus
- Re: why still use C?,
ozbear
- Re: Decimal Floating Point (was Re: why still use C?),
Keith Thompson
- Re: why still use C?,
Gene Wirchenko
- Re: why still use C?,
Mike Cowlishaw
- Re: why still use C?,
Mike Cowlishaw
- Re: Decimal Floating Point (was Re: why still use C?),
Dan Pop
- Re: why still use C?,
Dan Pop
- Re: why still use C?,
Hans-Bernhard Broeker
- Re: why still use C?,
Kevin Bracey
- Re: why still use C?,
P.J. Plauger
- Re: why still use C?,
P.J. Plauger