Talk:Small-C

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Does this really merit inclusion in an encyclopedia? We can't have a page for every random C dialect implemented for every random, obscure computer platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.lee (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 October 2002 (UTC)[reply]

Authors

Are the authors Ron Cain and James E. Hendrix known? Are they computer scientists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weberjn (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the code they wrote, and the rest of us who used their works, they are VERY Well Known! They both published their works in several computer-related magazines and went on to receive (at least from me) silent gratitude and thanks for their fine endeavors. /idknow 06apr2015/

Small-c's relevance

"Small-C was important for tiny computers in a manner somewhat analogous to the importance of GCC for larger computers." Hardly. Small computers in the eighties were typically not programmed in C. CP/M itself was written in PL/0. Assembler was still often used not only for system software but also for applications, chiefly due to the very limited amount of available memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.142.72.54 (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is that it's important to development of the language on small machines.

It's objections like these which really disappoint me. All computing activity which leads to further development in the field is important! /idknow 06apr2015/

Not mentioning it in a history of C development would be IMO a major over-sight.

Besides, as for Wikipedia, it must include the character of being a place for recording events and things of historical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idknow (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the vastness that is Wikipedia, there are already more than 2 million pages; surely, there are articles that are COMPLETE in their content about a particular facet of some over-arching subject?

Why should a modestly sized page about Smallc be targeted for redaction when even GCC warrants full discussion?

This isn't right that a small language of Small-C's caliber shouldn't be mentioned; it is still being hacked and improved and ported now. It's neither dead nor forgotten: it is a language for learning a particular facet of programming and its inclusion in Wikipedia does merit as complete a report as possible.

By way of thanks to the author of the comment above, I include my agrement with his comment. Thanks.

idknow 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC) idknow[reply]

Small C for Apple DOS

Its mentioned that Small C was implemented under Apple DOS (Apple II series of Computers) However, I can't even find a trace of information on it other than the passing mention. If anyone has more info, please update the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.148.32 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC

An important piece of history.

Small-C is an important bit of computer history, being one of the first open source compilers (and one of the first open source applications of any sort) available for the IBM PC.

A group of us at IBM in Rochester MN keyed in the original Dr. Dobb's source and ported it to the PC, shortly after the original publication. Simultaneously Hendrix ported the better known PC version. I don't know if the version we worked on (I did most of the porting) survives in any form -- I don't believe that I still have a copy. drh (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small-C specs and features

It would be nice to see a little bit on exactly how Small-C differs from regular C. 194.150.244.67 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 05Apr2015, I saw an Interview with someone from Wikipedia on CBS's 60 Minutes television show. The gentleman's tone and words indicated that in the years since I wrote the expanded article about Small-C attitudes have changed. The comments then were a castigation directed at me for wasting space and detail on a small and useless subject. Such foolishness but I couldn't do anything, and had to wait. After seeing the interview, and in that light, I determined to review the article and restore it to its original completeness, which I authored. I am pleased to have learned of the subsequent growth of the people who watch over the articles; hopefully this restored article will be accepted in the spirit in which it is intended. /idknow, 06Apr2015/.