Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb

Liste des GroupesRevenir à ol advocacy 
Sujet : Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb
De : nospam (at) *nospam* dfs.com (DFS)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date : 26. May 2024, 16:46:33
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <66534b46$0$6553$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Betterbird (Windows)
On 5/25/2024 8:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2024 10:50:50 -0400, DFS wrote:
 
*  The C99 standard was adopted in March 2000, so GuhNoo GCC couldn't
    have conformed to it in 1999.
 It is quite common for open standards to tested in working implementations
before they are officially finalized. I think GCC is often a testbed for
this sort of thing.
Perhaps, but GCC conformance to the C99 standard came "TEN FUCKING YEARS" later, not before it was actually adopted.
 >> *  Support for C99 was substantially complete in Visual Studio 2013
 Just two years after C11 was finalized.
Not bad, considering: "For many years Visual Studio has only supported C to the extent of it being required for C++."

Aren’t you proud of yourself?
Of course.  Correcting lying Linux crazies is important work.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
24 May 24 * Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb4DFS
24 May 24 +- Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb1rbowman
26 May 24 `* Re: GCC > MSVC (was Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb)2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
26 May 24  `- Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb1DFS

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal