Posted Oct 13, 2011 3:01 UTC (Thu) by anamana (subscriber, #2787)
Parent article: Dennis Ritchie RIP
As one of the founders of Unix, and more importantly the philosophy unix embodied, Dennis Ritchie has an echo in practically every company and technology in use around the world today.
Time (epoch-seconds) starts on 1/1/1970 for a reason.
Posted Oct 13, 2011 13:12 UTC (Thu) by shylock_1 (guest, #80769)
[Link]
... I admired true sense in those words a profound tribute to Denis M Richie, we all build our success on his hard work a real foundation, an indeed mountainous achievement by Denis; remain permanent outpost for every new comer, developer and computer technology enthusiast. HE the MAN who shown the inner working. He will be always be Hello ....
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
printf("\033[2J\033[;H"); /* Clear the screen */
printf("\nHello World -- by DM Richie\n");
printf("Your legacy remain radiant, an emanating lights for those\n");
printf("New and young developer and an old timers those pass through\");
printf("your ERA - Denis M Richie.\n\n");
/* exit */
return (EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
/*********************
Rest in Peace.
**********************/
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 13, 2011 15:11 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
It is probably better to try to spell the man's name right on his own digital monument. (It's "Dennis".)
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 13, 2011 16:58 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)
[Link]
Your "int main()" makes me want to point to www.slideshare.net/olvemaudal/deep-c
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 13, 2011 18:37 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link]
Why? int main() is fine in C99 (and it even says to in those slides).
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 14, 2011 1:55 UTC (Fri) by galanom (guest, #80787)
[Link]
It is illegal in C11 however.
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 14, 2011 3:28 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link]
> It is illegal in C11 however.
No it's not, at least not in the current draft. Section 6.7.6.3, paragraph 14:
"An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of that function specifies that the function has no parameters."
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 14, 2011 21:45 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)
[Link]
IIRC, the standard demanded that main be one of two signatures: int main(void) or int main(int, char **) only. That would be in line with page 24's "you should use int main(void) - because the standard says so", provided the PDF is right.
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 17, 2011 11:50 UTC (Mon) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link]
An empty
list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of that function specifies that the
function has no parameters.
i.e. In a function definition (as opposed to a prototype) int main() is the same as int main(void) and so is correct.
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 14, 2011 16:32 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137)
[Link]
On a more pragmatic level, gcc -Wall doesn't complain about main(). If it's good enough for -Wall, then it's good enough for me. ;)
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 14, 2011 16:41 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link]
I disagree. I think that -Wall should print many more warnings than it does.
Dennis Ritchie RIP your legacy...
Posted Oct 15, 2011 11:37 UTC (Sat) by da4089 (subscriber, #1195)
[Link]