> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Aley Keprt wrote: > > Okay, it's 1:1. Who's next.....? > > 2 Against. > > > Also, C is not so compatible too, since Watcom C - one of the best > > compilers - doesn't follow the standard of (all) other compilers. > > Then it's not the best compiler. Any decent C compiler should be ANSI > compilant. That's the whole point of having an ANSI standard. (Apart > from the fact I don't think there are any compilers compilant with the '99 > Spec....)
Ian Collier was talking about "the silly name-mangling schemes", and this has nothing to do with ANSI. So, Watcom might be ANSI, and still not comatible with others. When we look at it on binary (object file) level. > > I wonder, how much Sam C is compatible..... > > It isn't. It's a cut down version (based on small C for CP/M?). It's > memory management sucks, it doesn't do floats, it doesn't have a lot of > the standard libraries, and probably lots more. > > (But I liked it anyway, it was fun to play with). > > Tim I wonder if C for CP/M was so simple too? And, aren't there at least two C compilers for Sam?
