C as a Platonic pathology

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by spinoza1111, Aug 16, 2009.

  1. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    rogrammer collegiality of the early days has long been destroyed by a
    strange loyalty to artifacts, especially abstractions, most notably
    programming languages.

    The pathology here (not of "trolling", but of male on male bullying)
    derives ultimately from folk Platonism.

    As most people are aware, Plato believed that Ideas exist in a
    timeless realm of Forms, perfectly realized.

    In the early days there was the struggle to get sensible answers from
    limited machines.

    But gradually, and by trial and error, programmers built tools to get
    sensible answers and shared them with others.

    However, the capitalist system of the 1960s noticed that a new species
    of employee was talking back to its employers owing to full employment
    in the programming field.

    Therefore, the field was "rationalized". Computer languages, which had
    originated in praxis, were reified and in many cases frozen, and a
    fearsome array of headhunters sprang into existence basically to
    control access to the field.

    As a result, the struggle became to be "experts" in a "programming
    language". This despite the fact that the expertise, unlike
    traditional knowledge of the natural world and of culture, was the
    knowledge, in many cases, of errors that had to be treated as truths,
    such as "strings cannot contain Nuls" in C, and "in a or b, the
    evaluation of b may not depend on the truth of a" in Pascal.

    Plato (as his student Aristotle pointed out) had never assayed the
    ontology of flawed ideas. The Idea of Goodness, the Idea of Justice,
    the Idea of the State, are all very grand and noble. But what is the
    Platonic Idea of the Fart?

    Because a white-collar capitalist system deals in ideas reified to
    commodities, it is a natural Platonism. Capitalism has none of
    Aristotle's (nor St Thomas Aquinas') respect for the idiomatic, the
    indigenous, and of course as a result, capitalism has despoiled the
    earth.

    While exalting flawed artifacts created by fallible humans for
    specific purposes (in C's case, to program the DEC 10 and cock a snook
    at Multics) to the status of Ideas, capitalism subordinates the
    independent human spirit to that Idea, ignoring its flaws, and
    treating discussion of its flaws with a savagery more like
    Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic than like Socrates.

    Let us now praise famous men, and their children after them. Kernighan
    and Ritchie invented C. I met Kernighan. He's a nice guy.

    But who realized that in using the preprocessor, there are three types
    of macros, a fact extraneous to C as a set of rules? These rules are:

    1. Symbols which name types such as structs should be defined on one
    line
    2. Symbols which define expressions need parentheses around the
    definition
    3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
    brackets around the definition
    4. The formal parameters of macro symbols must appear in parentheses
    in the macro body
    5. When calling a macro the actual parameter should be in parentheses

    An uncodified body of knowledge shores up the Platonic idea.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 16, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 16, 5:45 pm, pete <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111wrote:
    > >  These rules are:
    > > 3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
    > > brackets around the definition

    >
    > That's wrong.
    > All external definitions result in executable code.
    > That includes external object definitions
    > which do not always require braces.


    If you understood context, you'd figure out that "executable code"
    means source executable code and not definitions. English isn't C, but
    you should master reading skills.

    My point was clear enough to the literate. If your symbol defines
    executable statements terminated in semicolons, you MUST wrap the
    definition part in curly brackets so that the macro call can be used
    anywhere a C statement is valid. A series of n > 1 statements is not a
    statement until it is bracketed. If you try to use a macro which
    hasn't followed the rule and uses n>1 statements, as the then or else
    clause of an if, or the loop body of a for or while, the statements
    after the first will be treated differently from the first with no
    error indication from the compiler.

    The code may even "run" and the user may be all "happy".

    This was Herb Schildt's problem. He can write, his enemies can neither
    write nor read, therefore with the rage of subhuman Trogdolytes
    without language, they attacked Schildt.
    >
    > "External definitions" is a technical term,
    > defined in the C standard.


    It is BARBARIC to replace English by some bureaucratic document.
    >
    > --
    > pete
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 16, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 16, 8:05 pm, pete <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111wrote:
    > > On Aug 16, 5:45 pm, pete <> wrote:

    >
    > >>spinoza1111wrote:

    >
    > >>> These rules are:
    > >>>3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
    > >>>brackets around the definition

    >
    > >>That's wrong.
    > >>All external definitions result in executable code.
    > >>That includes external object definitions
    > >>which do not always require braces.

    >
    > > If you understood context, you'd figure out that "executable code"
    > > means source executable code and not definitions.

    >
    > No.
    >
    > For this c program:
    >
    > /* BEGIN program.c */
    >
    > int rc = 1;
    >
    > int main(void)
    > {
    >      return rc - 1;
    >
    > }
    >
    > /* END program.c */
    >
    > When the program is run,
    > the definition of rc results in executable code
    > which reserves memory for the object
    > and initializes rc with a value of 1,
    > prior to main being executed.
    >
    > --
    > pete- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    You're really confused. Again, I said that "executable code" means
    sequences of C statements each terminating in a semicolon. You're
    talking about what's usually known as "object code".

    The Schildt and Kathy Sierra harassment incidents resulted from the
    fact that programmers, ignorant of computer science and "tracked" into
    programming (a field that actually requires verbal facility) by
    society, tend to think of human language as a calculus like the
    programming languages that so stunt their intellect.

    These programmers normally have a Scholastic and primitive
    understanding of the way in which language works, one linked with
    religious fundamentalism and political conservatism.

    Believing that words must have fixed referents and ignorant of de
    Saussure's thesis, that signifiers aren't fixed and positive but mean
    something in relation to other signifiers, they assert a mental
    property right in one possible definition, this being the most
    favorable to their cause.

    It was clear from the start what I meant by "executable code". But if
    you prefer:

    C macros that define C expressions should place the definition in
    parentheses. This guarantees that these expressions will never be
    evaluated unexpectedly with respect to operator precedence.

    C macros that define n>1 c statements, and arguably C macros that
    define one statement, should be enclosed in braces. This guarantees
    that these "compound statements" will nest appropriately when in the
    scope of for, while, and if statements.

    Gee. I know this and can express it clearly: yet I'm not a C expert.
    The evidence here, in which our Expert, Heathfield, expresses things
    in overly negative way (telling you you're wrong, especially if he
    doesn't like you, without giving a solution) and in overspecialised
    ways, that part of being an "expert" is keeping secrets.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 16, 2009
    #3
  4. "pete" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > spinoza1111 wrote:
    >> On Aug 16, 5:45 pm, pete <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>spinoza1111wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> These rules are:
    >>>>3. Symbols which define executable code should in all cases have curly
    >>>>brackets around the definition
    >>>
    >>>That's wrong.
    >>>All external definitions result in executable code.
    >>>That includes external object definitions
    >>>which do not always require braces.

    >>
    >>
    >> If you understood context, you'd figure out that "executable code"
    >> means source executable code and not definitions.

    >
    > No.
    >
    > For this c program:
    >
    > /* BEGIN program.c */
    >
    > int rc = 1;
    >
    > int main(void)
    > {
    > return rc - 1;
    > }
    >
    > /* END program.c */
    >
    > When the program is run,
    > the definition of rc results in executable code
    > which reserves memory for the object
    > and initializes rc with a value of 1,
    > prior to main being executed.
    >


    not exactly...

    it depends on the compiler, granted, but usually an initialized global is
    defined in an initialized region of memory (typically referred to as
    ".data").

    there is thus no need for this variable to be explicitly initialized, since
    it will already hold its value once the loader is done loading everything
    into memory...

    > --
    > pete
     
    BGB / cr88192, Aug 16, 2009
    #4
  5. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 16, 9:10 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111said:
    >
    > <most of the nonsense snipped>
    >
    > > The evidence here, in which our Expert, Heathfield, expresses things
    > > in overly negative way (telling you you're wrong, especially if he
    > > doesn't like you, without giving a solution) and in overspecialised
    > > ways, that part of being an "expert" is keeping secrets.

    >
    > The secrets you mention are revealed in ISO/IEC 9899:199x (for various
    > values of x), in "The C Programming Language", 2nd edition, Kernighan
    > and Ritchie, 1988, and in a number of other good quality tutorial
    > texts. If you are trying to learn C without the benefit of such a


    I am not trying to learn C. I am using it again after almost twenty
    years. The sources above contradict each other, and what they say
    about C can be invalidated at any time on target architectures (such
    as IBM mainframes) not designed for C as well as using the
    preprocessor.

    > book, you are putting yourself at a great disadvantage.
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    > This line unintentionally left unblank
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 17, 2009
    #5
  6. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 17, 2:06 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111said:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > I am not trying to learn C.

    >
    > Then stop wasting our time.


    If I'm wasting your time, why do you post responses to the "C
    Adventure" thread? You've embarassed yourself by making a false charge
    that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to continue,
    trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to admit later
    that usenet adds the line break.

    I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
    is horseshit.

    A great programmer by no means loves his tools, despite the saw that a
    poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
    independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
    fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
    grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
    great: quite the opposite.

    And it would have been better for the United Nations to agree on a
    runtime type safe virtual machine in 1970, and for this VM to be
    extended, and supported in the hardware. It would have been better for
    computer scientists, and not techies and their business managers, to
    work on this effort.
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    > This line unintentionally left unblank
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 17, 2009
    #6
  7. spinoza1111

    Tom St Denis Guest

    On Aug 17, 10:36 am, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
    > is horseshit.


    To what end? Are we supposed to accept your analysis, throw out all
    of our C code, and start writing in ADA or something?

    Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
    up with?

    > A great programmer by no means loves his tools, despite the saw that a
    > poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
    > independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
    > fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
    > grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
    > great: quite the opposite.


    A professional developer uses the right tool for the job. It's all in
    your head that you think anyone who happens to do a lot of work in C
    only works in C.

    Out of your list btw, only yacc/lex have anything to do with C. grep/
    awk are command line string tools, C++/Java are different programming
    languages who have syntax borrowed from C but are not C related.

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Aug 17, 2009
    #7
  8. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 18, 1:00 am, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 10:36 am,spinoza1111<> wrote:
    >
    > > I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
    > > is horseshit.

    >
    > To what end?  Are we supposed to accept your analysis, throw out all
    > of our C code, and start writing in ADA or something?


    Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
    inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.
    >
    > Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
    > up with?


    I don't know. Who's we?
    >
    > > A great programmer by no means loves his tools, despite the saw that a
    > > poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
    > > independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
    > > fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
    > > grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
    > > great: quite the opposite.

    >
    > A professional developer uses the right tool for the job.  It's all in


    A professional developer does NOT compare to this dreadful little
    metaphor, of a plumber laden with tools showing buttcrack fixing
    milady's sink. Most programmers in relation to the tools of production
    have no ownership, are treated like dogshit, and do not have the
    skills of professional plumbers in relation to the problems each face.
    As I've said, most programmers I've known are Joe the Plumber (the
    Sarah Palin fan) and in denial.

    > your head that you think anyone who happens to do a lot of work in C
    > only works in C.
    >
    > Out of your list btw, only yacc/lex have anything to do with C.  grep/
    > awk are command line string tools, C++/Java are different programming
    > languages who have syntax borrowed from C but are not C related.


    C++ was in fact written by a developer (Bjarne Stroustrup) who'd
    successfully developed software in Denmark for two reasons. One was
    that labor unions in Denmark participated in systems design. The other
    was that Stroustrup used an OO language (Simula). After immigrating to
    the United States, and going to work for Bell Labs, Stroustrup was
    given C to work in. He apparently took one look...and used C to escape
    from C.

    Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
    have used assembler.

    Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
    was written in C.

    Learn some history, boyo.

    >
    > Tom
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 18, 2009
    #8
  9. Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    > spinoza1111 said:
    > <snip>
    >
    >> You've embarassed yourself by making a false
    >> charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
    >> continue,

    >
    > Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
    > syntax error. This has been explained to you many times.

    [...]

    It's possible, even plausible, that the code did not contain that
    syntax error when it left his client (presumably a web browser
    if he's posting through Google Groups), and that the additional
    newline was added by the server.

    This is not a defense of his response to having the error pointed
    out.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Aug 18, 2009
    #9
  10. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 18, 12:46 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111said:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > You've embarassed yourself by making a false
    > > charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
    > > continue,

    >
    > Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
    > syntax error. This has been explained to you many times. I certainly
    > did not think for one moment that lcc-win32 incorrectly extends
    > single-line comments over multiple lines. (I do not know whether it
    > /correctly/ does so, by handling linesplicing correctly, but I have
    > no current reason to doubt it.) It is you who suggested so, by
    > claiming that the code you posted had been compiled under lcc-win32
    > without any diagnostic messages being produced.


    You lied with malice and you were called on your behavior by me and
    other posters. The code c compiled, formatting here adds linebreaks at
    column 67, and you claimed falsely that I'd added the newline. This
    was to be stupid, because you failed to remember this formatting, and
    evil, because you're persisting after being told what happened.

    Meanwhile, I went through every line of the code and reformatted it
    manually last night on the ferry. You are as work-shy as Hitler
    (Godwin converging validly in your case) and you prefer to sitting on
    your fat butt destroying the reputation of better men.

    However, you do have a detailed, if rather clerkish, if rather
    Gradgrindish, knowledge of C and you are welcome, I have decided, to
    remain. Please behave yourself in the future.

    >
    > > trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to
    > > admit later that usenet adds the line break.

    >
    > No, it doesn't, you oaf. Usenet is not a client.


    Don't presume to correct me. You are ignorant and dishonest. If I were
    your father I'd kick your ass.
    >
    > > I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that
    > > it is horseshit.

    >
    > You are failing in both.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    > This line unintentionally left unblank
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 18, 2009
    #10
  11. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 18, 7:40 am, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    > >spinoza1111said:
    > > <snip>

    >
    > >> You've embarassed yourself by making a false
    > >> charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
    > >> continue,

    >
    > > Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
    > > syntax error. This has been explained to you many times.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > It's possible, even plausible, that the code did not contain that
    > syntax error when it left his client (presumably a web browser
    > if he's posting through Google Groups), and that the additional
    > newline was added by the server.


    Check out the big brain on Brad! You a smart motherfucker, you know
    that?
    >
    > This is not a defense of his response to having the error pointed
    > out.


    You little weasel.
    >
    > --
    > Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith)  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    > Nokia
    > "We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    >     -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 18, 2009
    #11
  12. spinoza1111

    Tom St Denis Guest

    On Aug 17, 7:37 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
    > inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.


    I thought most healthcare systems were written in real languages like
    COBOL ... *rolls eyes*...

    > > Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
    > > up with?

    >
    > I don't know. Who's we?


    Anyone reading this thread. As in, what anyones motivation for taking
    you the slightest bit serious?

    > > A professional developer uses the right tool for the job.  It's all in

    >
    > A professional developer does NOT compare to this dreadful little
    > metaphor, of a plumber laden with tools showing buttcrack fixing
    > milady's sink. Most programmers in relation to the tools of production
    > have no ownership, are treated like dogshit, and do not have the
    > skills of professional plumbers in relation to the problems each face.
    > As I've said, most programmers I've known are Joe the Plumber (the
    > Sarah Palin fan) and in denial.


    First off, I'm Canadian, Richard [iirc] is British. Stop with the
    american political metaphors. They don't work.

    Second, you earlier said that the problem with C programmers is that
    they stick steadfast with C because they're ignorant and indoctrinated
    to not think out side the box. Then when I point out that real
    developers use multiple tools/languages you chastize that as well.

    Maybe the more likely scenario is you have no idea what you're talking
    about?

    > C++ was in fact written by a developer (Bjarne Stroustrup) who'd
    > successfully developed software in Denmark for two reasons. One was
    > that labor unions in Denmark participated in systems design. The other
    > was that Stroustrup used an OO language (Simula). After immigrating to
    > the United States, and going to work for Bell Labs, Stroustrup was
    > given C to work in. He apparently took one look...and used C to escape
    > from C.


    C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
    lives. I mean C++ is as much C as Java or PHP is. They have similar
    looking grammars but there are way more than enough differences to say
    they're living different lives.

    > Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
    > have used assembler.


    I have no idea what your point is. grep may be an application written
    in C, but it's not a language derived from C. I mean GNU bash is
    written in C too. So is the Linux kernel. Are those C derived
    languages too?

    > Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
    > was written in C.


    The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
    be written in C but that's beside the point.

    And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
    superficial level. For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
    switch, case, return, break, continue. But so does perl.

    Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?

    > Learn some history, boyo.


    Stop inventing history?

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Aug 18, 2009
    #12
  13. spinoza1111

    James Kuyper Guest

    Tom St Denis wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 7:37 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:

    ....
    > C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
    > lives. I mean C++ is as much C as Java or PHP is. They have similar
    > looking grammars but there are way more than enough differences to say
    > they're living different lives.


    Backwards compatibility with C was a major design goal for C++; read
    "Design and Evolution of C++" to get a better appreciation of just how
    strongly that goal influenced the design of C++. I don't know enough
    about the development of Java to guess whether the designers cared about
    compatibility with C, but looking at their product, it seems unlikely
    that it was a high-priority goal.

    Both the C and C++ standards committees have made a formal commitment to
    avoiding gratuitous incompatibilities between the two languages.

    >> Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
    >> have used assembler.

    >
    > I have no idea what your point is. grep may be an application written
    > in C, but it's not a language derived from C. I mean GNU bash is
    > written in C too. So is the Linux kernel. Are those C derived
    > languages too?
    >
    >> Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
    >> was written in C.

    >
    > The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C. The VM may
    > be written in C but that's beside the point.
    >
    > And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
    > superficial level. For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
    > switch, case, return, break, continue. But so does perl.
    >
    > Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?


    Awk, csh, perl and Java were all significantly influenced by C. Each of
    them moved away from C in various directions, all of them moving father
    away from C than C++ did, but there's still a clear, traceable influence
    in each of those languages.
     
    James Kuyper, Aug 18, 2009
    #13
  14. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 18, 10:40 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 18, 12:46 am, Richard Heathfield <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> spinoza1111said:

    >
    > >> <snip>

    >
    > >> > You've embarassed yourself by making a false
    > >> > charge that I inserted a newline or Jacques allows // comments to
    > >> > continue,

    >
    > >> Both wrong. I pointed out that *the code you posted* contained a
    > >> syntax error. This has been explained to you many times. I
    > >> certainly did not think for one moment that lcc-win32 incorrectly
    > >> extends single-line comments over multiple lines. (I do not know
    > >> whether it /correctly/ does so, by handling linesplicing correctly,
    > >> but I have no current reason to doubt it.) It is you who suggested
    > >> so, by claiming that the code you posted had been compiled under
    > >> lcc-win32 without any diagnostic messages being produced.

    >
    > > You lied with malice and you were called on your behavior by me and
    > > other posters.

    >
    > No, I didn't lie, with or without malice. As for "behaviour", you show
    > no sign of conforming to behavioural norms in this group, so it is
    > hypocritical of you to expect it of others. Note that the "behaviour"
    > in question was the pointing out of a diagnosable syntax error.


    ....and the accusation that I was lying or incompetent, an accusation
    that was itself either lying or incompetent. You start this shit and
    expect people to take it. Not any more.
    >
    > > The code c compiled, formatting here adds linebreaks
    > > at column 67,

    >
    > It is your responsibility to know that, and to take it into account
    > when posting code.


    No, that's not part of C. It was your collegial responsibility,
    asshole, to point it out clearly and without malice if you knew it.
    Instead, you started an unnecessary flame war because, asshole, I
    defend myself.

    >
    > > and you claimed falsely that I'd added the newline.

    >
    > No, I claimed truly that the code you posted had the newline there.
    > Keith Thompson has pointed out that it may have been the server that
    > added the newline, which is of course true, but it doesn't alter the
    > fact that the code that reached everyone else's servers had the
    > newline there.


    It no longer has the newline "there" (learn to write properly) and
    you're spamming and trolling because the union set of your
    incompetence and malice was on display, and even your butt buddies
    were embarassed by your conduct.

    >
    > > This was to be stupid, because you failed to remember this
    > > formatting, and evil, because you're persisting after being told
    > > what happened.

    >
    > Just keep on making stuff up. You're good at that.


    No, you make observations on people's competence grounding those
    observations on facts that you conceal.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Meanwhile, I went through every line of the code and reformatted it
    > > manually last night on the ferry.

    >
    > Well done. Now look up "indent" and save yourself a lot of future
    > work.


    I happen to have a Visual Basic utility for boxing text. Unfortunately
    it doesn't preserve indented formatting as appears in the
    documentation header. However, using the Microsoft C++ code editor, it
    took me all of three minutes "by Shrewsbury clock" to do the work.

    You forgot to point out that I'm stupid for using boxed comments. I
    shall have to do it for you. I am stupid for using boxed comments,
    because according to the conventional wisdom, they are "hard to
    maintain". Correction: they are hard to maintain when maintenance
    programmers are work-shy. They are worth the work since they isolate
    the English language and make it clear, even on a small screen, that
    the user is in language and not code space. But, I'm stupid, by your
    dim and faery lights, for using boxed comments.

    >
    > > You are as work-shy as Hitler

    >
    > I know you don't give two hoots about Godwin's Law. Nevertheless,
    > others do.


    Mike Godwin, with whom I bantered on a panel at Princeton University
    Press, might think his law might hide the connection between his
    jejune "libertarianism" and Fascism, or at least what British marxist
    Hobsbaum called the anarchy of the lower middle class. But as I have
    observed, the Internet, being predominantly G8 country white male, is
    overrun with shitbag little Hitlers like you, and I believe in calling
    a spade a spade.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > >> > trying to kill two birds with one stone, only to have to
    > >> > admit later that usenet adds the line break.

    >
    > >> No, it doesn't, you oaf. Usenet is not a client.

    >
    > > Don't presume to correct me.

    >
    > If you don't want to run the risk of being corrected, don't make
    > mistakes.


    I didn't make a mistake. You did, and you compounded it with wild
    accusations, like Adolf Hitler. Sieg Heil.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    > This line unintentionally left unblank- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 18, 2009
    #14
  15. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 18, 10:15 am, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 7:37 pm,spinoza1111<> wrote:
    >
    > > Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
    > > inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.

    >
    > I thought most healthcare systems were written in real languages like
    > COBOL ... *rolls eyes*...


    Grabs crotch. No, Cobol was replaced by C and that was worse. Modern
    structured Cobol is better than C because it keeps its programmers in
    their place.
    >
    > > > Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
    > > > up with?

    >
    > > I don't know. Who's we?

    >
    > Anyone reading this thread.  As in, what anyones motivation for taking
    > you the slightest bit serious?


    They might for one thing learn how to write. What anyones motivation?
    >
    > > > A professional developer uses the right tool for the job.  It's all in

    >
    > > A professional developer does NOT compare to this dreadful little
    > > metaphor, of a plumber laden with tools showing buttcrack fixing
    > > milady's sink. Most programmers in relation to the tools of production
    > > have no ownership, are treated like dogshit, and do not have the
    > > skills of professional plumbers in relation to the problems each face.
    > > As I've said, most programmers I've known are Joe the Plumber (the
    > > Sarah Palin fan) and in denial.

    >
    > First off, I'm Canadian, Richard [iirc] is British.  Stop with the
    > american political metaphors.  They don't work.


    No? Actually, a lot of Canucks and Limeys are just as stupid,
    politically, as Americans. Witness Harper's sabre rattling in the
    Arctic. He himself won't have to fight Yanks and Russians in 50 below
    zero weather, no, unemployed Canadians will be sent to die. He should
    be working on a demilitarized arctic.
    >
    > Second, you earlier said that the problem with C programmers is that
    > they stick steadfast with C because they're ignorant and indoctrinated
    > to not think out side the box.  Then when I point out that real
    > developers use multiple tools/languages you chastize that as well.


    Yes, I've had it up to here with the lot of you. Some of you use one
    language, others mess up in multiple languages, and I'm past caring.
    >
    > Maybe the more likely scenario is you have no idea what you're talking
    > about?


    No.
    >
    > > C++ was in fact written by a developer (Bjarne Stroustrup) who'd
    > > successfully developed software in Denmark for two reasons. One was
    > > that labor unions in Denmark participated in systems design. The other
    > > was that Stroustrup used an OO language (Simula). After immigrating to
    > > the United States, and going to work for Bell Labs, Stroustrup was
    > > given C to work in. He apparently took one look...and used C to escape
    > > from C.

    >
    > C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
    > lives.  I mean C++ is as much C as Java or PHP is.  They have similar
    > looking grammars but there are way more than enough differences to say
    > they're living different lives.
    >
    > > Grep and awk were written mostly in C, although other versions may
    > > have used assembler.

    >
    > I have no idea what your point is.  grep may be an application written
    > in C, but it's not a language derived from C.  I mean GNU bash is
    > written in C too.  So is the Linux kernel.  Are those C derived
    > languages too?


    No. The point is that C cannot do certain tasks and it makes more
    sense to develop another language to do the job.
    >
    > > Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
    > > was written in C.

    >
    > The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C.  The VM may
    > be written in C but that's beside the point.


    I am very familiar with compiler and language bootstrapping. That's
    how we created new versions of the sl/1 compiler at Bell Northern
    Research. My point was that as early as 1991 it was obvious at Sun
    that neither C nor C++ were languages suited for competent developers,
    C because it's an infantile disorder, C++ because it's mostly
    compatible with C.
    >
    > And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
    > superficial level.  For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
    > switch, case, return, break, continue.  But so does perl.


    Java uses C syntax because Kernighan and Ritchie STOLE the quality
    ideas from PL/I as seen in the Multics project, and PL/I was stolen
    from Algol and the Europeans by arrogant American developers. In so
    doing, Java and C Sharp preserve one of Kernighan's and Ritchie's
    worst errors, a for statement in which the conditional is overgeneral,
    and evaluated each time. The Visual Basic for statement is better
    since the limit of the loop is read-only after the For starts. As it
    is, for in C, Java and C Sharp duplicates the function of a while with
    a little extra syntatical sugar.

    >
    > Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?


    No, I am saying that people above a certain level of culture,
    intelligence and taste take one look at C and say unto themselves,
    yuck, I can do better than that.
    >
    > > Learn some history, boyo.

    >
    > Stop inventing history?


    I lived it. I rode a tank in the general's ranks. I started out in
    pure machine language before you were born, kid. What was your first
    language, kid? Trash 80 Basic in the 1980s? I wrote my first program
    in Jan 1970 and was privileged to banter with some of the heavy
    hitters in the old days, including Nash, Kernighan, and Whitfield
    Diffie.

    I nearly got thrown out of the Computer Museum in Mountain View
    because I said they were wasting their time rebuilding the IBM 1401
    when they could be writing an encyclopedia of simulators and virtual
    reality old computers; I observed that the technology of the 1401, on
    which I started out, is no longer environmentally safe and one of the
    creepy old hardware types that now run the place looked at me funny.

    You see, cyberspaces are used by low-dominance men to construct a sort
    of laager to keep out sex and race, and preventing sexual and racial
    considerations from having to be dealt-with. The Computer Museum,
    which started out as a multicultural and non-gendered space, has been
    turned into a laager overdedicated to rebuilding a minor and not very
    innovative machine that had its share of design flaws ("can't add,
    doesn't try": a seven bit word with a dedicated word mark: etc.).

    I programmed the 1401 up the ass and had a dream about it last night,
    but not for once did I manifest that barbarous loyalty to artifacts
    and reified ideas that to me is the mark of the developer, that will
    never rise above a plateau of competence, and who will be driving a
    cab by the time he's forty.

    I've written about software history for the IEEE journal in that
    discipline (see the spring/summer issue of 1999), sonny boy, so shove
    it.
    >
    > Tom
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 18, 2009
    #15
  16. On 17 Aug, 18:00, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 10:36 am, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >
    > > I am re-learning C after a hiatus of 20 years in order to show that it
    > > is horseshit.

    >
    > To what end?  Are we supposed to accept your analysis, throw out all
    > of our C code, and start writing in ADA or something?
    >
    > Why should we care about any conclusions you [rightly or wrongly] come
    > up with?
    >
    > > A great programmer by no means loves his tools,


    respects then? I appreciate good tools for what they can do for me.


    > > despite the saw that a
    > > poor work man blames his tools (logically the statements are
    > > independent). Indeed, the fact that so many C programmers have
    > > fashioned C-based tools and completely new languages using C (awk,
    > > grep, yacc, lex, C++, Java, blarg, bleegh, etc) implies not that C is
    > > great: quite the opposite.


    I implies it is great for building tools

    > A professional developer uses the right tool for the job.  It's all in
    > your head that you think anyone who happens to do a lot of work in C
    > only works in C.
    >
    > Out of your list btw, only yacc/lex have anything to do with C.  grep/
    > awk are command line string tools,


    awk is a full blown programming language. You don't have to use it
    from
    the command line.


    > C++/Java are different programming
    > languages who have syntax borrowed from C but are not C related.


    I think he's saying they were implemented in C. Which is rather
    a counter argument to his "C is useless" argument.
     
    Nick Keighley, Aug 18, 2009
    #16
  17. On 18 Aug, 03:15, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 7:37 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:


    > > Yes. In fact, "throwing out C" in health care would result in the
    > > inability of health care bureaucracies to bill and overbill.


    you dangerously underestimate bureaucracies. They bombed Cambodia
    whilst the computers all said they wern't. Not a line of C in sight.

    <snip>

    > C++ looks like C but isn't based on C in that they are living parallel
    > lives.  


    C++ is based on C and it is silly to pretend otherwise

    <snip>

    > > Java was a deliberate attempt to build a safe C with strings, and it
    > > was written in C.

    >
    > The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C.  The VM may
    > be written in C but that's beside the point.
    >
    > And Java is a typesafe OOP language that barely resembles C on a very
    > superficial level.  For example, they both have keywords like if, for,
    > switch, case, return, break, continue.  But so does perl.
    >
    > Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?
    >
    > > Learn some history, boyo.

    >
    > Stop inventing history?


    both of you. Perl is heavily influenced by C.

    But let's stick to Java.

    operators: ++ -- (pre and postfix - why don't I just stop now?)
    + / % (!) + - << >> (!) < > <= >= == (!) != & | ^ && || ?: =
    += -= *= /= %= &= ^= |= <<= >>=

    ok a couple of weird ones >>>, >>>=, instanceof

    you can look me in the eye and claim a language with &&, >>= and ==
    isn't enourmously influenced by C?

    It uses curly brackets, /* comments

    half the key words are the same as C (and quite a few more
    are the same as C++)
     
    Nick Keighley, Aug 18, 2009
    #17
  18. spinoza1111

    Tom St Denis Guest

    On Aug 18, 1:17 am, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > Grabs crotch. No, Cobol was replaced by C and that was worse. Modern
    > structured Cobol is better than C because it keeps its programmers in
    > their place.


    I'd say the industry based on C and C++ is a lot larger [by a
    ridiculous amount] then COBOL, or even Java.

    > They might for one thing learn how to write. What anyones motivation?


    OH MY GOD, I missed a word. Stop the presses.

    > No? Actually, a lot of Canucks and Limeys are just as stupid,
    > politically, as Americans. Witness Harper's sabre rattling in the
    > Arctic. He himself won't have to fight Yanks and Russians in 50 below
    > zero weather, no, unemployed Canadians will be sent to die. He should
    > be working on a demilitarized arctic.


    This has what to do with clc? I don't listen to Harper for
    programming/development ideas either. Stop trying to wedge your "omg
    I'm so old I have to rant about everything" arguments into a clc
    thread.

    Next you're gonna talk about "the good old days" when the black
    programmers sat at the back of the lab right?

    > Yes, I've had it up to here with the lot of you. Some of you use one
    > language, others mess up in multiple languages, and I'm past caring.


    So you admit to being a flagrant hypocrite? Gotcha. So I'm stupid if
    I program in multiple languages AND I'm stupid if I program in only
    one language...


    > No. The point is that C cannot do certain tasks and it makes more
    > sense to develop another language to do the job.


    Yes, we agree. But the converse is also true. There are things for
    which ANY language is not well suited. Only an idiot sticks to one
    language all the time through personal preference.

    > > The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C.  The VM may
    > > be written in C but that's beside the point.

    >
    > I am very familiar with compiler and language bootstrapping. That's
    > how we created new versions of the sl/1 compiler at Bell Northern
    > Research. My point was that as early as 1991 it was obvious at Sun
    > that neither C nor C++ were languages suited for competent developers,
    > C because it's an infantile disorder, C++ because it's mostly
    > compatible with C.


    Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the Java compiler is written
    in Java, not C. Java and it's hosted VM platform solve a DIFFERENT
    set of problems than C and C++. Mostly because C is rarely hosted
    with a VM.

    You worked at BNR too? Rock on. Shame how Nortel seemed to torpedo
    it eh? Which lab did you work in?

    > Java uses C syntax because Kernighan and Ritchie STOLE the quality


    Whoa whoa whoa. Wait. Java uses C syntax because K&R stole it from
    elsewhere? Or did they choose the C syntax as a basis because it was
    so ridiculously widespread and well understood by competent [re: not
    you] developers?

    > > Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?

    >
    > No, I am saying that people above a certain level of culture,
    > intelligence and taste take one look at C and say unto themselves,
    > yuck, I can do better than that.


    Ok, so you're hanging out in clc because.... [complete the sentence
    please.]

    > I lived it. I rode a tank in the general's ranks. I started out in
    > pure machine language before you were born, kid. What was your first
    > language, kid? Trash 80 Basic in the 1980s? I wrote my first program
    > in Jan 1970 and was privileged to banter with some of the heavy
    > hitters in the old days, including Nash, Kernighan, and Whitfield
    > Diffie.


    Oh, now you know Diffie... did you happen to give him the idea for DH
    too? Do you just read wikipedia and throw names out?

    For the 3rd time, John Nash is NOT a famous developer in any right.
    So bringing him up here is irrelevant. I've met Diffie as well [my
    first crypto conference actually], I've also met a slew of other
    famous cryptographers. Big deal. Their brilliance doesn't rub off on
    you just because you met them. It doesn't mean anything.

    <snip rest of irrelevant crap>

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Aug 18, 2009
    #18
  19. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 18, 8:54 pm, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
    > On Aug 18, 1:17 am,spinoza1111<> wrote:
    >
    > > Grabs crotch. No, Cobol was replaced by C and that was worse. Modern
    > > structured Cobol is better than C because it keeps its programmers in
    > > their place.

    >
    > I'd say the industry based on C and C++ is a lot larger [by a
    > ridiculous amount] then COBOL, or even Java.
    >
    > > They might for one thing learn how to write. What anyones motivation?

    >
    > OH MY GOD, I missed a word.  Stop the presses.


    You also transformed "than" into "then". Yes, stop the presses.
    >
    > > No? Actually, a lot of Canucks and Limeys are just as stupid,
    > > politically, as Americans. Witness Harper's sabre rattling in the
    > > Arctic. He himself won't have to fight Yanks and Russians in 50 below
    > > zero weather, no, unemployed Canadians will be sent to die. He should
    > > be working on a demilitarized arctic.

    >
    > This has what to do with clc?  I don't listen to Harper for
    > programming/development ideas either.  Stop trying to wedge your "omg
    > I'm so old I have to rant about everything" arguments into a clc
    > thread.


    Everything is related, sonny boy.
    >
    > Next you're gonna talk about "the good old days" when the black
    > programmers sat at the back of the lab right?


    **** you, asshole. The real racists are white programmers who use
    technology as a white laager to avoid confronting their white skin
    privilege and their gender issues.
    >
    > > Yes, I've had it up to here with the lot of you. Some of you use one
    > > language, others mess up in multiple languages, and I'm past caring.

    >
    > So you admit to being a flagrant hypocrite?  Gotcha.  So I'm stupid if
    > I program in multiple languages AND I'm stupid if I program in only
    > one language...
    >
    > > No. The point is that C cannot do certain tasks and it makes more
    > > sense to develop another language to do the job.

    >
    > Yes, we agree. But the converse is also true.  There are things for
    > which ANY language is not well suited.  Only an idiot sticks to one
    > language all the time through personal preference.
    >
    > > > The standard Sun Java compiler is written in Java not C.  The VM may
    > > > be written in C but that's beside the point.

    >
    > > I am very familiar with compiler and language bootstrapping. That's
    > > how we created new versions of the sl/1 compiler at Bell Northern
    > > Research. My point was that as early as 1991 it was obvious at Sun
    > > that neither C nor C++ were languages suited for competent developers,
    > > C because it's an infantile disorder, C++ because it's mostly
    > > compatible with C.

    >
    > Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the Java compiler is written
    > in Java, not C.  Java and it's hosted VM platform solve a DIFFERENT
    > set of problems than C and C++.  Mostly because C is rarely hosted
    > with a VM.
    >
    > You worked at BNR too?  Rock on.  Shame how Nortel seemed to torpedo
    > it eh?  Which lab did you work in?


    Mountain View.
    >
    > > Java uses C syntax because Kernighan and Ritchie STOLE the quality

    >
    > Whoa whoa whoa.  Wait.  Java uses C syntax because K&R stole it from
    > elsewhere?  Or did they choose the C syntax as a basis because it was
    > so ridiculously widespread and well understood by competent [re: not
    > you] developers?


    Read: Americans.

    >
    > > > Are you saying perl is C with hash arrays/strings?

    >
    > > No, I am saying that people above a certain level of culture,
    > > intelligence and taste take one look at C and say unto themselves,
    > > yuck, I can do better than that.

    >
    > Ok, so you're hanging out in clc because.... [complete the sentence
    > please.]


    In order to relearn enough about C to destroy the illusion that it is
    still viable for new development.

    >
    > > I lived it. I rode a tank in the general's ranks. I started out in
    > > pure machine language before you were born, kid. What was your first
    > > language, kid? Trash 80 Basic in the 1980s? I wrote my first program
    > > in Jan 1970 and was privileged to banter with some of the heavy
    > > hitters in the old days, including Nash, Kernighan, and Whitfield
    > > Diffie.

    >
    > Oh, now you know Diffie... did you happen to give him the idea for DH
    > too?  Do you just read wikipedia and throw names out?


    He was a coworker at Bell Northern Research.
    >
    > For the 3rd time, John Nash is NOT a famous developer in any right.
    > So bringing him up here is irrelevant.  I've met Diffie as well [my
    > first crypto conference actually], I've also met a slew of other
    > famous cryptographers.  Big deal.  Their brilliance doesn't rub off on
    > you just because you met them.  It doesn't mean anything.


    No, it doesn't. However, they were all characterised by a lack of
    willingness to shore up their own shaky self-image by tearing down
    other people.
    >
    > <snip rest of irrelevant crap>
    >
    > Tom
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 18, 2009
    #19
  20. spinoza1111

    Tom St Denis Guest

    On Aug 18, 10:09 am, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    <snip everything that doesn't have anything to do with clc>

    Whoa. Empty post now... hmm.

    Can you rephrase your comments, questions, and ideas in terms of
    elements of the C language?

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Aug 18, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page