On 31.01.2024 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 31.01.2024 17:18, Michael S wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:05:23 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

(See for example 'man ksh' Section "Input/Output". But careful; ksh
has additional non-standard additions. So a peek into the POSIX docs
might serve you better.)

FWIW, the POSIX shell language was based on a subset of ksh88.

Yes. POSIX was based pretty much on ksh88. The differences are not
very large. If you're interested to know about the few differences
have a look into the book of Bolsky and Korn (it's in the appendix).

For more than three decades, though, there's ksh93 around. This is
what we typically mean when we speak about ksh. (But careful, since
the first version of ksh93 there had been a lot changes until now.)

Quite some time passed, though, until the commercial Unixes changed
their default ksh to ksh93. (I haven't any more access to commercial
Unixes, so I cannot tell about the current state.) See what you get.

On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
But I suggest to use the ksh93u+m (the version maintained by Martijn
Dekker), instead; it has a lot errors fixed.

A lot has changed between ksh88 and ksh93 already, and the current
ksh93 version developed even further. (Its man page shows details.)

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 31.01.2024 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:

<snip commentary about POSIX adopting most of ksh88>

On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93). >Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
But I suggest to use the ksh93u+m (the version maintained by Martijn
Dekker), instead; it has a lot errors fixed.

The AT&T ksh93 has been distributed for a long time. My 2012
install of Fedora Core 20, OSX, and my recent Ubuntu install use:

$ Version AJM 93u+ 2012-08-01

It's been decades since pdksh/mksh were defaults.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:16:12 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:

In article <upe60i$1latn$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93). >Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
[snip]

I'm not sure I understand this. Linux is just the kernel; to
get a useful operating system, you need a number of other
components such as utilities, system libraries, a load, and
other tools. A number of such distributions are based on GNU
tools; at least one is based on BSD tools. So writing, "On
Linux you got only a ksh clone..." doesn't make much sense to me
and seems like a category error.

Certainly, one can install `ksh93` in a Linux distribution.

- Dan C.

Come on, in informal everyday's language the word Linux is very often
used as a shortcut for Gnu/Linux.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <upe60i$1latn$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93). >Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
[snip]

I'm not sure I understand this. Linux is just the kernel; to
get a useful operating system, you need a number of other
components such as utilities, system libraries, a load, and
other tools. A number of such distributions are based on GNU
tools; at least one is based on BSD tools. So writing, "On
Linux you got only a ksh clone..." doesn't make much sense to me
and seems like a category error.

Certainly, one can install `ksh93` in a Linux distribution.

- Dan C.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:50:55 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:16:12 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:

In article <upe60i$1latn$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T
ksh93). Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per
default. [snip]

I'm not sure I understand this. Linux is just the kernel; to
get a useful operating system, you need a number of other
components such as utilities, system libraries, a load, and
other tools. A number of such distributions are based on GNU
tools; at least one is based on BSD tools. So writing, "On
Linux you got only a ksh clone..." doesn't make much sense to me
and seems like a category error.

Certainly, one can install `ksh93` in a Linux distribution.

- Dan C.

Come on, in informal everyday's language the word Linux is very often
used as a shortcut for Gnu/Linux.

Other than providing a compiler and C library, GNU has nothing to
do with linux. There are other compilers, and other C libraries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:16:12 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:

In article <upe60i$1latn$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
[snip]

I'm not sure I understand this. Linux is just the kernel; to
get a useful operating system, you need a number of other
components such as utilities, system libraries, a load, and
other tools. A number of such distributions are based on GNU
tools; at least one is based on BSD tools. So writing, "On
Linux you got only a ksh clone..." doesn't make much sense to me
and seems like a category error.

Certainly, one can install `ksh93` in a Linux distribution.

- Dan C.

Come on, in informal everyday's language the word Linux is very often
used as a shortcut for Gnu/Linux.

Other than providing a compiler and C library, GNU has nothing to
do with linux. There are other compilers, and other C libraries.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <20240131230048.0000513c@yahoo.com>,
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:50:55 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:16:12 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:

In article <upe60i$1latn$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T
ksh93). Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per
default. [snip]

I'm not sure I understand this. Linux is just the kernel; to
get a useful operating system, you need a number of other
components such as utilities, system libraries, a load, and
other tools. A number of such distributions are based on GNU
tools; at least one is based on BSD tools. So writing, "On
Linux you got only a ksh clone..." doesn't make much sense to me
and seems like a category error.

Certainly, one can install `ksh93` in a Linux distribution.

Come on, in informal everyday's language the word Linux is very often
used as a shortcut for Gnu/Linux.

Other than providing a compiler and C library, GNU has nothing to
do with linux. There are other compilers, and other C libraries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

I really don't care what Stallman thinks about the naming. DMR
is said to have once quipped in the Unix room, when Stallman was
complaining about the Plan 9 license, "Stallman won't be happy
until we call it Plan-Guh-Nine."

That said, when one's talking about whether ksh93 is shipped
with "Linux" or not, it's surely important to talk about what
distribution one is referring to!

- Dan C.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/01/2024 20:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93). Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
But I suggest to use the ksh93u+m (the version maintained by Martijn
Dekker), instead; it has a lot errors fixed.

A lot has changed between ksh88 and ksh93 already, and the current
ksh93 version developed even further. (Its man page shows details.)

The most common standard shell on Linux is bash. But alternatives
include busybox (popular on small systems), dash (Ubuntu uses this,
IIRC), and others such as csh, zsh, fish, ksh, sash, yash, and lots of
ones for distributed systems and other special cases. That was just
from a very quick peek on my system.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01.02.2024 11:45, David Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2024 20:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
But I suggest to use the ksh93u+m (the version maintained by Martijn
Dekker), instead; it has a lot errors fixed.

A lot has changed between ksh88 and ksh93 already, and the current
ksh93 version developed even further. (Its man page shows details.)

The most common standard shell on Linux is bash. [...]

Sure. But don't confuse a "common 'standard' on Linux" with a
[POSIX] standard. (Ksh and Bash widely conform to POSIX. It's
getting interesting, though, when extensions are getting used.)

If you were confused by "On Linux you got only a ksh clone,",
you have to read it in the context of this subthread; it was
about Kornshell, the POSIX standard , and the relation between
those two. If you wanted Kornshell on Linux, in early days,
you've got some clone. (I compiled the original AT&T sources
for my initial Linux environment myself. I think later they
provided also Linux binaries, but I'm not sure I recall that
correctly.) At some point we got the original AT&T Kornshell
with Linux standard distributions.

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31.01.2024 20:28, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 31.01.2024 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:

<snip commentary about POSIX adopting most of ksh88>

On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
But I suggest to use the ksh93u+m (the version maintained by Martijn
Dekker), instead; it has a lot errors fixed.

The AT&T ksh93 has been distributed for a long time. My 2012
install of Fedora Core 20, OSX, and my recent Ubuntu install use:

$ Version AJM 93u+ 2012-08-01

This is what I regularly see. - Also on my system. But I replaced it
with Version AJM 93u+m/1.0.8 2024-01-01.

(I suppose you use bash, but if you're using ksh I suggest to switch
to "ksh93u+m".)

It's been decades since pdksh/mksh were defaults.

This would just be about one decade. (But it's fruitless to discuss
whether it's a year earlier or later.)

Initially - don't exactly know when I first used Linux, but it must
have been in the late 1990's - you had to download the original Ksh
from kornshell.com (source and/or Linux binaries; ISTR that the
Linux binaries came late, initially they supported the contemporary
commercial Unix platforms).

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31.01.2024 22:20, Dan Cross wrote:

That said, when one's talking about whether ksh93 is shipped
with "Linux" or not, it's surely important to talk about what
distribution one is referring to!

Yes. Though it's probably not interesting what any individual
runs. More important is how the support for shells by distros
evolve. Here we can collect experiences. (Or someone who has,
for whatever reason, knowledge about all existing distros and
can provide a more accurate picture.)

Currently I'm using Ubuntu, but I had used also other distros
in former times. So I could not give a coherent picture from
my own installations (or the systems I worked with). Even less
I could (not in former times, not now) give a coherent picture
of what tool/version was or is "generally" part of the distros.

My observation, concerning the topic in this subthread, was that
"You don't always get what you want." or only with difficulties.

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31.01.2024 21:16, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <upe60i$1latn$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
[snip]

I'm not sure I understand this. Linux is just the kernel; to
get a useful operating system, you need a number of other
components such as utilities, system libraries, a load, and
other tools. A number of such distributions are based on GNU
tools; at least one is based on BSD tools. So writing, "On
Linux you got only a ksh clone..." doesn't make much sense to me
and seems like a category error.

Yes, you are absolutely right. - This was sloppy speech on my part.
Sorry for the confusion.

Certainly, one can install `ksh93` in a Linux distribution.

Meanwhile it seems to be standard in various (or all? can't tell)
distros. - I thought at least that should be clear from the text
you quoted above; see the "meanwhile [...] a ksh93 [...]" part.

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/02/2024 12:12, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 31.01.2024 20:28, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 31.01.2024 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:

<snip commentary about POSIX adopting most of ksh88>

On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
But I suggest to use the ksh93u+m (the version maintained by Martijn
Dekker), instead; it has a lot errors fixed.

The AT&T ksh93 has been distributed for a long time. My 2012
install of Fedora Core 20, OSX, and my recent Ubuntu install use:

$ Version AJM 93u+ 2012-08-01

This is what I regularly see. - Also on my system. But I replaced it
with Version AJM 93u+m/1.0.8 2024-01-01.

(I suppose you use bash, but if you're using ksh I suggest to switch
to "ksh93u+m".)

It's been decades since pdksh/mksh were defaults.

It's funny how this newsgroup often veers away from theoretical
discussions of the C standard, by turning into stackoverflow.

Could you get any more specific!

I thought even mention of a particular C compiler was off-topic. And yes
I can see the OT tag, this stuff still looks totally out of place.

(I've no idea what it is about. For all I know, this is the usenet
equivalent of Mornington Crescent (see Wikipedia), and they're making it
up.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <upg23b$22ef0$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 31.01.2024 21:16, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <upe60i$1latn$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
[snip]

I'm not sure I understand this. Linux is just the kernel; to
get a useful operating system, you need a number of other
components such as utilities, system libraries, a load, and
other tools. A number of such distributions are based on GNU
tools; at least one is based on BSD tools. So writing, "On
Linux you got only a ksh clone..." doesn't make much sense to me
and seems like a category error.

Yes, you are absolutely right. - This was sloppy speech on my part.
Sorry for the confusion.

Certainly, one can install `ksh93` in a Linux distribution.

Meanwhile it seems to be standard in various (or all? can't tell)
distros. - I thought at least that should be clear from the text
you quoted above; see the "meanwhile [...] a ksh93 [...]" part.

Oh I see now; that was aspirational. I suppose the challenge
there would be convincing the various distro maintainers that
shipping ksh93 by default adds value beyond what they get from
whatever shell(s) they are currently shipping.

- Dan C.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

[...]

I would greatly appreciate it if for future such [OT] threads
that they be started in a newsgroup where they are more
relevant to the subjects usually discussed there. Thank you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01.02.2024 14:22, Tim Rentsch wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

[...]

I would greatly appreciate it if for future such [OT] threads
that they be started in a newsgroup where they are more
relevant to the subjects usually discussed there. Thank you.

I changed to this specific subject when the subthread already was
OT and I additionally marked it as [OT] to make it possible for
readers who are not interested in that digression to just skip it.

Label and subject! - Thanks for your attention and understanding.

This thread that originally had the subject iso646.h has hundreds
of posts not related to iso646.h - ...in case you've not noticed.
Why don't you comment on these untagged digressions in the first
place if you feel so comfortable in a Usenet control freak role?
(Unfortunately I read them because they had NOT changed subject
or marked them as [OT]. You probably missed them because of the
topical subject despite having off-topic content?)
Looking forward to see you replaying to all the OT posts that are
not marked as [OT] or carry an appropriate subject.
No, not really! But you would certainly be The One here who would
do so.
Hint: The Netiquette is a big source for more reasons to complain
(line lengths, etc.). Good luck.

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 31.01.2024 20:28, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 31.01.2024 18:20, Scott Lurndal wrote:

<snip commentary about POSIX adopting most of ksh88>

On Linux you got only a ksh clone, first basically based on ksh88
(but I anyway never used it but downloaded the original AT&T ksh93).
Meanwhile, I think, you should get a ksh93 on Linux per default.
But I suggest to use the ksh93u+m (the version maintained by Martijn
Dekker), instead; it has a lot errors fixed.

The AT&T ksh93 has been distributed for a long time. My 2012
install of Fedora Core 20, OSX, and my recent Ubuntu install use:

$ Version AJM 93u+ 2012-08-01

This is what I regularly see. - Also on my system. But I replaced it
with Version AJM 93u+m/1.0.8 2024-01-01.

(I suppose you use bash, but if you're using ksh I suggest to switch
to "ksh93u+m".)

No, I don't use bash. I've used ksh since 1989.

I'm perfectly happy with ksh93u.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01.02.2024 16:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 31.01.2024 20:28, Scott Lurndal wrote:

$ Version AJM 93u+ 2012-08-01

This is what I regularly see. - Also on my system. But I replaced it
with Version AJM 93u+m/1.0.8 2024-01-01.

(I suppose you use bash, but if you're using ksh I suggest to switch
to "ksh93u+m".)

No, I don't use bash. I've used ksh since 1989.

I'm perfectly happy with ksh93u.

Oh, that's okay then. (I just wonder that you haven't yet stumbled
over any of the countless and partly very annoying bugs. But okay,
if it works reliably for you...)

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:45:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:

.. dash (Ubuntu uses this, IIRC) ...

On Debian and derivatives (including Ubuntu), dash is the go-to for a
minimal, strictly POSIX-compliant shell.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:50:36 +0000, bart wrote:

For all I know, this is the usenet equivalent of Mornington Crescent ...

You can’t get far in C without knowing POSIX. C on Windows is, let’s face it, a crippled language.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 05:22:54 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:

I would greatly appreciate it if for future such [OT] threads that they
be started in a newsgroup where they are more relevant to the subjects usually discussed there. Thank you.

Friendly tip: all the good USENET news readers have facilities to allow
you to ignore messages you don’t want to see. Use them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:43:32 +0200, Michael S wrote:

Frankly, Unix redirection racket looks like something hacked together
rather than designed as result of the solid thinking process.
As long as there were only standard input and output it was sort of
logical. But when they figured out that it is insufficient, they had
chosen a quick hack instead of constructing a solution that wouldn't
offend engineering senses of any non-preconditioned observer.

One thing with *nix-type OSes versus others is that shells are not specially-privileged system components in any sense, they are just
ordinary user programs like any other.

If you have some clever ideas for an alternative command language that doesn’t offend your sensibilities, feel free to code it up and show us how it’s done.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/02/2024 05:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:50:36 +0000, bart wrote:

For all I know, this is the usenet equivalent of Mornington Crescent ...

You can’t get far in C without knowing POSIX. C on Windows is, let’s face it, a crippled language.

I've been a professional programmer for thirty years, and while I have
used a number of languages, most of my work has been in C. POSIX is
totally irrelevant to my programming, as is C on Windows.

It is true that C is often used on POSIX targets. It is true that
programming on POSIX systems is often done on C. It is /not/ true that
they are synonymous.

POSIX has been essential for the standardisation of *nix systems, and
gives a good common base that is beyond the C standard but not as
specific as an OS. However, it is in itself pretty irrelevant to most C programmers. Even if you limit yourself to C programmers targetting
*nix systems, they target Linux, or particular libraries and frameworks
(such as GTK or SDL), or standard C, or gcc+glibc. POSIX makes no
difference - if the functions and features they want are in the
libraries they will be using, they will use them.

/Some/ C programmers write code for POSIX, with an aim to portability
across any POSIX system, but it is surely a very small minority.

(But most C programmers probably have access to the POSIX-extended
printf that started this.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/02/2024 04:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:50:36 +0000, bart wrote:

For all I know, this is the usenet equivalent of Mornington Crescent ...

You can’t get far in C without knowing POSIX. C on Windows is, let’s face it, a crippled language.

It sounds like you're the one who would be crippled without your beloved
POSIX.

There has of course been a huge amount of software written in C on Windows.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:57:46 +0000, bart wrote:

On 02/02/2024 04:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:50:36 +0000, bart wrote:

For all I know, this is the usenet equivalent of Mornington Crescent
...

You can’t get far in C without knowing POSIX. C on Windows is, let’s
face it, a crippled language.

It sounds like you're the one who would be crippled without your beloved POSIX.

Given your ongoing tales of woe, wrestling cross-platform C code to behave nicely on Windows, I wouldn’t change places for the world.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:18:51 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote:

On 02/02/2024 04:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:50:36 +0000, bart wrote:

For all I know, this is the usenet equivalent of Mornington Crescent
...

You can’t get far in C without knowing POSIX. C on Windows is, let’s
face it, a crippled language.

My program Crossword Designer is a Windows program and is written
entirely in C.

As the saying goes about teaching a bear to dance, it’s not that the bear dances badly, but that it can be persuaded to dance at all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 12:47:29 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 2/2/2024 5:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

Given your ongoing tales of woe, wrestling cross-platform C code to
behave nicely on Windows, I wouldn’t change places for the world.

vcpkg is not all that bad. :^)

I’m sure vcpkg, winget, nuget, chocolatey, anaconda and all the rest of
them are not all that bad, at least not individually.

Having to use more than one of them, on the same system, would be where it starts to go downhill ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 15:26:02 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 2/4/2024 2:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 12:47:29 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 2/2/2024 5:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

Given your ongoing tales of woe, wrestling cross-platform C code to
behave nicely on Windows, I wouldn’t change places for the world.

vcpkg is not all that bad. :^)

I’m sure vcpkg, winget, nuget, chocolatey, anaconda and all the rest of
them are not all that bad, at least not individually.

Having to use more than one of them, on the same system, would be where
it starts to go downhill ...

Pick one that works for your current setup, and use it. Fair enough?

But their application areas only partially overlap, if at all. What if the package you want is only available in a different, incompatible format?

This is all part of the fragmentation of Windows development.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)