A good compiler

[Richard]

In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy. Still,
it's a big foot and you seem to have plenty of ammunition, so fire away
if you must.

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above must
be the most ironic I have ever read. Do you ever stop and read your
own posts?

 

[Chris Hills]

jacob navia said:


Such threads are off-topic. Did you point out that the gcc discussion
was off-topic? If not, you can hardly complain that nobody else did.

I did not complain. Why would I? I would prefer the netnainies to stop
shouting OT so often. My point was that it seems to be some what
distorted.

And so it is.

But no more so than the GCC which is not branded as OT. Personally i
think we need a little more tolerance. GCC is as commercial as
Lcc-win32 so leave them both alone don't just pick on one.

It is.

No, that's what comp.std.c is for.

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

Yes, they do,

No they don't

and you have the right not to pay any attention, and they
have the right to point out that you are misusing the newsgroup by
pushing your product here,

CRAP. No more than anyone else mentioning any other product. Or any
member of the FOSS community pushing FOSS

and you have the right not to agree, and
they have the right to treat you like a pariah and recommend that
people avoid your compiler,

No they don't

And I'll go on telling mine, which is that you are abusing this
newsgroup

No he isn't

with your constant off-topic discussions of compiler
extensions.

It is no more OT than mentioning any other compiler.

In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy.

Possibly. However it is not up to you to police it.

 

[Richard Bos]

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

Go tell that to the real experts over in that newsgroup, and see how
many tears in your ego you come away with.

Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above
must be the most ironic I have ever read.

If, as you claim, you are a relatively new[1], and intermittent, poster
here, it is perhaps understandable that you don't understand the
dynamics of the comp.lang.c newsgroup. So let me attempt to explain it
for you, and let's start out by ensuring that the focus of this
explanation is clear. I am specifically answering your claim that my
words (that Mr Navia's posting style makes him his own worst enemy) are
ironic. They are not in fact ironic at all. Why not? Read on to find
out.

Here we go then. I do not use comp.lang.c for commercial advantage. I
use it because I think it worthwhile to help people to learn about C,
and because I find C discussions interesting. If someone here decides,
on the basis of my tone, code, or advice, that I'm some kind of
self-opinionated idiot who likes the sound of his own typing, then
that's up to them, and I don't care. I won't lose any income as a
result.

Financially, you see, Usenet is a cost to me rather than a benefit. It's
something I do because I think it benefits the C programming community,
not because I think it can make me money. I observe topicality rules
fairly closely (albeit not religiously) because I can see that the only
logical alternative is chaos (Death of Usenet predicted, film at 11,
etc). And I try to keep my advice correct because I think incorrect
advice is a disservice to others. But if some people here gain a
negative impression of what I write because they don't like my tone,
code, or advice, I lose nothing by it. So from my point of view, even
if all my articles were badly-conceived, badly-written, off-topic,
incorrect, and even offensive, I wouldn't actually suffer any financial
disadvantage as a result. I don't write articles like that, of course,
but I could if I wanted to, and I would *still* not be my "own worst
enemy".

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.
It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can. With his steady stream of off-topic answers to C questions in
which he pushes his language extensions, it is clear that he is
attempting to gain lcc-win32 users rather than to offer independent,
accurate advice that is independent of any particular compiler. This is
not an honorable way to behave in a technical newsgroup. If he wants to
advertise his compiler here, let him do it in his sig block. That's
(partly) what they're /for/ - as a side-channel that can be used to
communicate information that need not have any bearing on the newsgroup
topic.

It does not help his cause that, even when he tries to reply to C
questions here with C answers (as opposed to lcc-win32 answers), he
very often gets the answers /wrong/. This does not give us a great deal
of confidence in the correctness of the compiler he claims to have
written.

This is what I mean by Mr Navia being his own worst enemy. The articles
he writes touting lcc-win32 draw constant criticism about his attempts
to exploit the group for commercial gain, and his often incorrect C
advice damages public confidence in his code. If he kept his articles
topical, and took more care to answer correctly, both these negative
factors would just disappear.

Do you ever stop and read your own posts?

Yes. I think they're rather good, actually.


[1] I seem to recall that, hitherto, you have claimed otherwise, but I
could be wrong and I can't find a reference. Perhaps you would care to
clarify whether you would prefer to be considered a newbie who doesn't
understand the group dynamics or an oldbie who ought to know better.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

I did not complain. Why would I?

Because it's off-topic. If we let topicality go, the group will be
damaged, as comp.lang.c++ regulars with a few years under their belt
will testify.

I would prefer the netnainies to
stop shouting OT so often. My point was that it seems to be some what
distorted.

It shouldn't be; gcc threads are off-topic here. Questions about gcc
ought to be referred to an appropriate newsgroup. I see no harm in
mentioning gcc in a comparative thread ("The Standard says /this/, and
gcc interprets it /that/ way, whereas Visual C does /such-and-such/",
yadayada), or perhaps as a frinstance, but if the compiler is central
to the discussion, then the discussion is OT.

But no more so than the GCC which is not branded as OT.

Then brand it, my dear chap.

Personally i
think we need a little more tolerance. GCC is as commercial as
Lcc-win32 so leave them both alone don't just pick on one.

I don't want to pick on anyone. I just think this group should be for
discussing the language, not implementations of that language or
extensions to that language. Both gcc and lcc-win32 have their own
newsgroups. Let such discussions be conducted in those groups. That's
what they're *for*. And this group is for discussing C.

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

Are you saying that proposed changes to the Standard are not topical in
comp.std.c? I think that will come as news to the comp.std.c people.
Still, maybe you're right - feel free to take it up with them if you
like.

No they don't

Are you saying that they don't have the same freedom of speech that you
enjoy? I'm fascinated.

CRAP. No more than anyone else mentioning any other product.

And no less.

Or any member of the FOSS community pushing FOSS

If members of the FOSS community push FOSS here rather than discuss C,
they are off-topic. Feel free to point this out to them if you care
enough. And if you don't care enough, why are you complaining?

No they don't

What happened to freedom of speech?

No he isn't

Yes, he is.

It is no more OT than mentioning any other compiler.

And no less.

Possibly. However it is not up to you to police it.

I agree. It is, however, up to me to express my opinion, just as it is
up to you to express yours. I do so, and you do so, and I don't see the
problem here.

If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving and
incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish for
*his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

 

[Richard]

Richard said:

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above
must be the most ironic I have ever read.

If, as you claim, you are a relatively new[1], and intermittent, poster
here, it is perhaps understandable that you don't understand the
dynamics of the comp.lang.c newsgroup. So let me attempt to explain it

No. I do understand. As a long term techie I also find the kind of low
brow jobs worth that is prevalent in every technical department the world
over. Big fish in small ponds. Almost in no other group is that so
clearly demonstrated as in this group. And there are enough people who
mention it. Surely you can't be totally ignorant of the pervasive tone
of this smug little enclave?

for you, and let's start out by ensuring that the focus of this
explanation is clear. I am specifically answering your claim that my
words (that Mr Navia's posting style makes him his own worst enemy) are
ironic. They are not in fact ironic at all. Why not? Read on to find
out.

They are ironic in that you mention his posting style makes him his own
worst enemy. Browsing a few of your cocky lectures it is apparent that
you manage the same. A shame as you undoubtedly know your ISO C.

Here we go then. I do not use comp.lang.c for commercial advantage. I

You do indirectly.

use it because I think it worthwhile to help people to learn about C,
and because I find C discussions interesting. If someone here decides,
on the basis of my tone, code, or advice, that I'm some kind of
self-opinionated idiot who likes the sound of his own typing, then
that's up to them, and I don't care. I won't lose any income as a
result.

There is another reason you post. And it's not to help. As a good few of
your rather vitriolic put downs reveal. In fact you mentioned it above.

Financially, you see, Usenet is a cost to me rather than a benefit. It's
something I do because I think it benefits the C programming
community,

We are not necessarily talking about you. Difficult for you to absorb I
know.

not because I think it can make me money. I observe topicality rules
fairly closely (albeit not religiously) because I can see that the
only

No you don't. You frequently meander off.

logical alternative is chaos (Death of Usenet predicted, film at 11,
etc). And I try to keep my advice correct because I think incorrect
advice is a disservice to others. But if some people here gain a
negative impression of what I write because they don't like my tone,
code, or advice, I lose nothing by it. So from my point of view, even
if all my articles were badly-conceived, badly-written, off-topic,
incorrect, and even offensive, I wouldn't actually suffer any financial
disadvantage as a result. I don't write articles like that, of course,
but I could if I wanted to, and I would *still* not be my "own worst
enemy".

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.
It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can. With his steady stream of off-topic answers to C questions in
which he pushes his language extensions, it is clear that he is
attempting to gain lcc-win32 users rather than to offer independent,
accurate advice that is independent of any particular compiler. This is
not an honorable way to behave in a technical newsgroup. If he wants to
advertise his compiler here, let him do it in his sig block. That's
(partly) what they're /for/ - as a side-channel that can be used to
communicate information that need not have any bearing on the newsgroup
topic.

I have seen many posts from Jacob Navia which are supportive, helpful
and friendly.

And if he is wrong as often as you say, then he is doing himself a
financial disservice. Who wants a compiler maintained by someone who
can't code C?

It does not help his cause that, even when he tries to reply to C
questions here with C answers (as opposed to lcc-win32 answers), he
very often gets the answers /wrong/. This does not give us a great deal
of confidence in the correctness of the compiler he claims to have
written.

Who is "us"? I have seen plenty of incorrect advice in this group from
the regular boffins who were in such a hurry to put someone down that
they didn't read the question properly. One of "you" has even taking to
use the "STFU" acronym when he feels the question is below him. A grade
A dickhead if ever I read one.

This is what I mean by Mr Navia being his own worst enemy. The articles
he writes touting lcc-win32 draw constant criticism about his attempts
to exploit the group for commercial gain, and his often incorrect C
advice damages public confidence in his code. If he kept his articles
topical, and took more care to answer correctly, both these negative
factors would just disappear.


Yes. I think they're rather good, actually.

No surprise there. And, cap off, some are. But you have a tendency to
obfuscate and show off when it is totally unnecessary. I cant be
bothered to google but the one where you claim that the character was
most certainly not stored at address p before p was incremented (*p++=c)
was a great example of this.

[1] I seem to recall that, hitherto, you have claimed otherwise, but I
could be wrong and I can't find a reference. Perhaps you would care to
clarify whether you would prefer to be considered a newbie who doesn't
understand the group dynamics or an oldbie who ought to know better.

I said "relative" newbie in that I was away for a long time. But we
don't earn points of length of service. It is interesting popping back
and seeing how certain posters have morphed from being keen helpful Asok
types to arrogant, smug unhelpful and cutting incumbent types.

"We don't do that here".

Whatever.

 

[Richard]

If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving and
incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish for
*his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

Let Jacob worry about his *own* sake.

And you worry about yours.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

They are ironic in that you mention his posting style makes him his
own worst enemy. Browsing a few of your cocky lectures it is apparent
that you manage the same.

I covered this in my earlier reply.

You do indirectly.

No, I don't. I have received a financial gain from being a comp.lang.c
subscriber only once, and that was accidental from my perspective. A
publishing company's acquisitions editor contacted me after reading my
comp.lang.c articles, and the eventual outcome was that I received some
money for writing a book on C. I rarely mention the book at all in
comp.lang.c, however, because this is not the place to tout commercial
products.

There is another reason you post. And it's not to help.
Wrong.


We are not necessarily talking about you. Difficult for you to absorb
I know.

Wrong again. We *are* talking about me, and *you* started it, by saying
that my claim that Mr Navia is his "own worst enemy" was "ironic".
Please do try to concentrate.

No you don't. You frequently meander off.

We're all human. If you see an off-topic reply of mine, *tell* me.

I have seen many posts from Jacob Navia which are supportive, helpful
and friendly.

I have seen several such, compared to many that are incorrect or
off-topic or both.

And if he is wrong as often as you say, then he is doing himself a
financial disservice. Who wants a compiler maintained by someone who
can't code C?

Precisely my point.

Who is "us"?

C programmers.

I have seen plenty of incorrect advice in this group from
the regular boffins who were in such a hurry to put someone down that
they didn't read the question properly.

So have I. It's a shame when that happens. I have also seen people claim
that a question is off-topic when in fact it is not, or that something
"can't be done" in ISO C when in fact it can, or at least something
very similar and maybe "good enough" can be done. That isn't good, and
I don't like it any more than you do.

One of "you" has even taking
to use the "STFU" acronym when he feels the question is below him. A
grade A dickhead if ever I read one.

Anyone who uses abbreviations such as "STFU" or words such as "dickhead"
is not a person with whom I would care to be associated.

No surprise there.

Right. That's because I take the time and trouble to *make* them good.

And, cap off, some are.

And some less so. Can't win 'em all.

But you have a tendency to
obfuscate and show off when it is totally unnecessary. I cant be
bothered to google but the one where you claim that the character was
most certainly not stored at address p before p was incremented
(*p++=c) was a great example of this.

I would not have made such a claim - not because it most certainly *is*
(which is not true), but because it isn't possible to tell just from
looking at the code whether the store happens before or after the
increment. C doesn't mandate either ordering. If the whole statement
is:

*p++=c;

and if p is a valid pointer to an object that has a type that is
compatible with c, then we can say that both of the following things
must happen, but we can't say in which order they happen:

(a) the value of p is incremented, so that it points to the next object
along.
(b) the value of c is copied into the object that was pointed to by p at
the previous sequence point.

<snip>

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority.

Wrong. I'm expressing *my* opinion, just as you are expressing yours.

Whether other people share my opinion is not my decision, but theirs.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above must
be the most ironic I have ever read. Do you ever stop and read your
own posts?

These people are all budding/wannabee politicians. They are all gunning
for positions in the Bush administration.

To be able to just lie straight out like this, with not even a hint as
to how ridiculous they look, is viewed by them as a skill. Scooter
Libbys in training...

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

You either have not bothered to read this newsgroup or are very thick.
The only other choice is one that I don't believe: that you are
purposely lying. For well over 20 years, with a huge roster of regular
posters coming and going, has always maintained high standards for
topicality. It has always had a small number of destructive posters who
have tried to undermine it. You seem to be in that latter group. It is
because the overwhelming majority of posters have *always* resisted such
nihilism that this newsgroup has maintained itself while others have
fallen into the usenet cesspool.

Your attack as "jobsworths" on professional programmers who are regulars
here only because they hope to help people is unworthy of any civil
person. Please learn some manners.

 

[Chris Hills]

Richard said:


C programmers.

This is NOT correct. You only speak for your self and may be a couple of
others. You do NOT and can not claim to speak for "C programmers"
because you don't.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

Let Jacob worry about his *own* sake.

And you worry about yours.

Exactly. Well put, sir!

 

[Chris Hills]

Richard said:

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can.

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

With his steady stream of off-topic answers to C questions in
which he pushes his language extensions, it is clear that he is
attempting to gain lcc-win32 users rather than to offer independent,
accurate advice that is independent of any particular compiler.

Interesting. There are no C compilers (we have been here before) very
few actually fully implement ISO C9899:1999 and ALL have their own
extensions.

So the C you want to discuss is not actually used but any real world
compiler is OT?

If you want to discuss ONLY standard C then go to comp.lang.std.c

 

[Chris Hills]

Exactly. Well put, sir!

Actually agree with you for once.

 

[Richard]

You either have not bothered to read this newsgroup or are very
thick. The only other choice is one that I don't believe: that you are

Well, neither actually. Do you have a third option?

purposely lying. For well over 20 years, with a huge roster of

Oh. You did. The "lying" option. How am I "lying" when I say that twenty
"OT" replies to one post is a bit much?

regular posters coming and going, has always maintained high standards
for topicality. It has always had a small number of destructive
posters who have tried to undermine it. You seem to be in that latter
group. It is because the overwhelming majority of posters have

How, in any way, am I undermining anything? Do you see me criticising
helpful posts? No.

*always* resisted such nihilism that this newsgroup has maintained
itself while others have fallen into the usenet cesspool.

Like where? C++ group has no where near the level of self importance as
this group and is well controlled.

Your attack as "jobsworths" on professional programmers who are
regulars here only because they hope to help people is unworthy of any
civil person. Please learn some manners.

I am a professional programmer. My manners are fine. Interestingly I am
posting about the bad manners and general arrogant nature of the core
little clique here. My "attack", if you insist on calling it that, is
not on "professional programmers who wish to help", but on self
important smug socially dysfunctional idiots who cant help themselves
with their constant rebukes and petty put downs.

There are plenty of people here are here to help and not just to posture
and pose.

Thanks for leaving it in.

And as usual, feel free to disagree.

 

[Keith Thompson]

We have had this discussion a number of times. In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C, and the possible evolution of
C.

Yes, it's a forum to discuss C. Discussions of the possible evolution
of C are better conducted in comp.std.c.

If you discuss the extensions offered by your compiler in the context
of suggesting them as future changes to the language standard, then
that's not too bad. As I said, comp.std.c would probably be better,
but I've discussed possible language changes here myself. But you
often push lcc-win32's extensions *without* proposing them as changes
to the standard, as specific solutions to questioners' problems.

The C-like language processed by lcc-win32 is no more topical here
than the C-like language known as "C++".

You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Of course we do.

[...]

 

[Chris Hills]

Yes, it's a forum to discuss C. Discussions of the possible evolution
of C are better conducted in comp.std.c.

If you discuss the extensions offered by your compiler in the context
of suggesting them as future changes to the language standard, then
that's not too bad. As I said, comp.std.c would probably be better,
but I've discussed possible language changes here myself. But you
often push lcc-win32's extensions *without* proposing them as changes
to the standard, as specific solutions to questioners' problems.

The C-like language processed by lcc-win32

And every other "c " compiler on the planet

is no more topical here
than the C-like language known as "C++".

No compilers are fully C99 compliant and all have their own extensions.
You appear to want to discuss a language that is not implemented

Of course we do.

No you have no more right to say it is wrong than I have to say it is
right

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

This is NOT correct. You only speak for your self and may be a couple
of others. You do NOT and can not claim to speak for "C programmers"
because you don't.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm simply using common sense. Still,
let's explore it, shall we? Is it your claim, then, that there are C
programmers for whom Mr Navia's frequent C-related mistakes *do* give
them a great deal of confidence in the compiler he claims to have
written? If so, then I am happy to re-cast my statement so as to
include only *bright* C programmers.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

Well, you'll have to take that up with Mr Navia. Perhaps you're right,
and he is mistaken in thinking that he charges for his product. From
his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence." [sic]

Is he wrong, then?

<snip>