Yakov Lerner wrote:
Since I've been working with computers since the early 1970s and since I
used B (the predecessor of C which was [and possibly still is] used in
Canada), it is more than most likely that I am mixing and matching my
languages or remembering an outdated version of C. Also, since at NASA
(I was at NASA JSC in ClearLake/Houston) we had to do a lot of our own
coding for various items (like a control chair so simulations could be
done with the astronauts, or the fixed and motion based simulators,
etc...) it is also likely that I was using macros someone else wrote to
allow for binary input of numbers. (This was necessary in some cases
because the hardware would only accept binary information some times.
In many cases we would do inline assembly language within the C programs
too.) The 70's and even the 80's were a dark time in computer
programming because there were very few standards and not a lot of
company's used them. (This is one of the really few things that
Microsoft and Apple Computer helped to change. They do try to enforce
the standards - on everyone else of course. Even though it seems they
both also break their own standards every chance they get.) Like SGI
which had it's own special interface for their graphic computers until
X-Windows came along and then SGI switched to Linux as their OS basis.
There were some "special" items to SGI's C to help handle the graphics
in the pre-X-Windows days. Things became more standardized with
X-Windows and then the Linux OS helped out even more. So take your
pick. Don't really care. But there probably are still systems out
there that have binary capabilities in their C languages to help out
with whatever. Check out Sony's PlayStation 3. People are having to
write very low-level code to get it to work. Makes me wonder if people
are using C and if those compilers have special additions to them that
would allow someone to write binary information directly to a part of
the hardware to help boost the speed of it. If so, they might extend
the C language via macros or a direct change to the compiler in order
for everyone to get the most out of the computer. Still, I'm not going
to rack my brain for exactly which system and where just because you
want to know. It is not worth the time or effort on my part.
On 9/11/06, Mark Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> On 9/11/06, Mark Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is fairly easy to check for inconsistencies in Binary, Octal,
> I'm afraid C does not notion of binary numbers.
On some systems that answer is correct. On others it is not. :-)
I'm aware of binary numbers in perl (0b101010101). But in C ?
What exactly is syntax of "binary numbers in C" ? How does it look ?
On which systems ?
I never heard of "binary numbers in C" ...
I am very curious to hear from you all details that you can provide.
What exactly are those systems and how exactly the syntax looks ?
Have fun! :-)