C IDE Recommendations

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want
to talk about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I
will. But I don't need you to badger me with this.

You have some misconceptions. There is no such thing as 'my
thread'. Everything on this (and other) newsgroups is totally
public. What is off-topic is discussion here about IDEs, which are
intrinsically system specific, and not specified in the C standard.

 

[goose]

Jonathan Pritchard wrote:

As to Jacob Navia get the hell out of my thread if you just want to talk
about command line compiling, if I want to do that, I will. But I don't
need you to badger me with this.

you are being possibly a /little/ unfair to Mr Navia,
don't you think? He may have misunderstood your
requirements, but a little politeness wouldn't hurt.

goose,

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Are we facing a new generation of programmers that don't care about
details? Even fairly important details, like file locations?

You gratuitously snipped the rest of my quote. If you're compiling
inside the IDE, the location of the built executable is almost
certainly irrelevant since you're probably running it from inside the
IDE too.

Plus any IDE that doesn't let you specify default locaitons, and which
then can't pass this through to the compiler as commandline args, is a
bag o sh... I mean, even MSVC can do this....

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Obviously you HAVE to create a project to be able to store
the options the user may modify later, to coordinate the debugger
startup (where is the executable? The debugger HAS to know)

No, you don't. You could store these in a config file for the IDE,
common to all files you compile, at any time. Or you could store them
in memory for the duration of the session. The debugger can pick them
up from the IDE.

Mr Heathfield remarks are just sarcasm.

No.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Bos]

Look, you can do what you want with

lc myprog.c

No, I can't. You evidently have no idea what I want.

Obviously the debugger is stupid. It will NOT figure out automagically
where the executable is.

Pretty stupid IDE, too, then, for not telling it.

Richard

 

[Jonathan Pritchard]

Jonathan Pritchard wrote:


you are being possibly a /little/ unfair to Mr Navia,
don't you think? He may have misunderstood your
requirements, but a little politeness wouldn't hurt.

goose,

Well usually I consider myself pretty polite. Maybe I'm confusing usenet
with a forum but I'm new to this. Usually it's not polite to hijack
things, or change the meaning of the discussion.

This is what Mr Navia has done. Which is rude in my opinion, but you're
right no need to fight fire with fire. I apologise.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Well usually I consider myself pretty polite. Maybe I'm confusing
usenet with a forum but I'm new to this. Usually it's not polite to
hijack things, or change the meaning of the discussion.

This is what Mr Navia has done. Which is rude in my opinion, but
you're right no need to fight fire with fire. I apologise.

Hijacking a thread is rude, but the offense is against the newsgroup
community, not just against the originator of the thread. Nobody owns
a thread.

(I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.)

 

[jacob navia]

Hijacking a thread is rude, but the offense is against the newsgroup
community, not just against the originator of the thread. Nobody owns
a thread.

(I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting nonsense is rude, and makes other people waste their time.

Disclaimer
----------
I am not saying that Keith Thompson posts nonsense.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???

IIRC, you shifted the topic to IDE's (specifically, yours), proceeded
to explain that you needed to make a project to hold information for
said IDE, and then began to argue about the benefits of projects (or
makefiles, or whatever).

When informed that for small, hacky little programs, making an actual
project file would cause more trouble than it saves, you immediately
took that stance and declared that command line usage is the Right
Thing (in some cases).

When confronted with this, you stated that you didn't hijack anything,
because all you did was suggest using a command line (that's not all
you did), and that it's perfectly fine because most of the experts here
also prefer commandlines.

You seem to have forgotten that neither command lines or IDE's are on
topic in a C group, and you have shifted a somewhat-topical thread to
those two subjects, neither of which belong here. That's what I call
hijacking. Not only that, but your hijacking caused a flurry of come-
backs from regulars pointing out your rudeness, thus guaranteeing the
success of your off-topic post in hijacking the thread.


Finally, you seem to do such things very frequently in this group,
often simply to insult Richard Heathfield (and it's very rare for
you to have an actual point in doing so).


Notes after checking groups.google.com:
1) This thread wasn't ontopic in the first place, so there seems to be
no major issue (in this case).
2) Your original thread-hijacking post was a smarmy "Welcome back" to
Mr. Heathfield. Hmm.

 

[Keith Thompson]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting nonsense is rude, and makes other people waste their time.

Disclaimer
----------
I am not saying that Keith Thompson posts nonsense.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything. I just dared to tell Mr
Pritchard that for compiling small programs the command line could
be a lot faster and simpler than an IDE.

Is that "hijacking" a thread???

Specially when you have posted hundreds of times that you do not use
IDEs and use the command line instead???

Perhaps you didn't understand that when I wrote:

I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.

what I *really* meant was

I'm expressing no opinion on whether the thread was hijacked.

I honestly didn't pay enough attention to that part of the discussion
to have an opinion. Jonathan Pritchard said you hijacked the thread;
since I was commenting in general terms on something else he wrote, I
felt it was important to state that I wasn't endorsing (or rejecting)
that statement. My intent was only to clarify why he was mistaken in
treating the thread as if he owned it. (I'm not pounding on Jonathan
here; I think it's clear that he now understands this.)

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Actually, by posting that very remark, you are definitely implying
that you think that. Read up on the meaning of disingenuous if you
have trouble understanding this.

Please Keith. I did not HIJACK anything.

Keith specifically said that he had no opinion on that matter.

The difference is that which separates slander from opinion.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:17:20 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia


Keith specifically said that he had no opinion on that matter.

The difference is that which separates slander from opinion.

<nit>Well, on Usenet it would be libel rather than slander.</nit>

 

[jacob navia]

IIRC, you shifted the topic to IDE's (specifically, yours),

Yes, since the original poster said:

> C IDE Recommendations // Subject line!!

I did not SHIFT any topic! The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS:
"C IDE RECOMMENDATIONS".

Are you BLIND?

proceeded
to explain that you needed to make a project to hold information for
said IDE,

Because "wmaple" answered to my post with:

> There are many advantages of lcc. But, it's not convenient to complie
> some trivial programs
> because i have to create projects which sre unnessary in this
> situation. Can lcc work like
> turbo c which complie source code without creating a project?

and then began to argue about the benefits of projects (or
makefiles, or whatever).

Yes that subthread was started with the reply of wmaple ([email protected])

When informed that for small, hacky little programs, making an actual
project file would cause more trouble than it saves, you immediately
took that stance and declared that command line usage is the Right
Thing (in some cases).

Yes, that is my opinion. So what?

When confronted with this, you stated that you didn't hijack anything,
because all you did was suggest using a command line (that's not all
you did), and that it's perfectly fine because most of the experts here
also prefer commandlines.

And I still say, if you care to follow the original discussion as it was
and not as you imagine it was.

You seem to have forgotten that neither command lines or IDE's are on
topic in a C group, and you have shifted a somewhat-topical thread to
those two subjects, neither of which belong here.

The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.

That's what I call
hijacking. Not only that, but your hijacking caused a flurry of come-
backs from regulars pointing out your rudeness, thus guaranteeing the
success of your off-topic post in hijacking the thread.

So, if I say something and all "regulars"
fall on me like crazy it is MY FAULT obviously!

What a logic my dear.

Finally, you seem to do such things very frequently in this group,
often simply to insult Richard Heathfield (and it's very rare for
you to have an actual point in doing so).

Ahh I insult Mr GURU Heathfield...

Well no.

He just treated me of stupid in the thread "Serial Port acces in XP".
(5 minutes ago)

And *I* insult HIM of course.

Notes after checking groups.google.com:
1) This thread wasn't ontopic in the first place, so there seems to be
no major issue (in this case).
2) Your original thread-hijacking post was a smarmy "Welcome back" to
Mr. Heathfield. Hmm.

Yes, I was sorry that the holidays are over.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Ahh I insult Mr GURU Heathfield...

You do...

Well no.

You don't...

He just treated me of stupid in the thread "Serial Port acces in XP".
(5 minutes ago)

I did? I don't recall doing that. Still, if the cap fits...

And *I* insult HIM of course.

You really can't make your mind up, can you?

If in doubt, be polite.

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia said:




You do...




You don't...




I did? I don't recall doing that. Still, if the cap fits...




You really can't make your mind up, can you?

If in doubt, be polite.

> No, I don't automatically think people are stupid for disagreeing

with me. After all, I am occasionally wrong.

>

Then I answered

OK, In that case I retire my words.

So this explains that. There are several threads going on.

jacob

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Yes, since the original poster said:

I did not SHIFT any topic! The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS:
"C IDE RECOMMENDATIONS".

Are you BLIND?

Boy, is my face red. I completely missed the subject line. :-}

 

[goose]

Mark McIntyre said:




<nit>Well, on Usenet it would be libel rather than slander.</nit>

<double-nit>
Depending on which country you are from, there may
be no law which differentiates between written and
verbal defamation.
</dn>

 

[Keith Thompson]

The Original Poster of the thread started asking about an IDE.
Besides, I do think that IDEs *are* topical here and that this
group is hijacked by people that want it to discuss a narrow
part of the language (C89) and not all the environment where
the language lives.

For the record, we routinely discuss C89/C90 *and* C99, and
occasionally pre-standard versions of the language, and such
discussions are (almost?) universally accepted as topical. The fact
that some of us will point out that depending on C99-specific features
can cause portability problems does not change the fact that C99 is
considered topical here.

(My comment in this followup applies only to that one narrow point,
and not to any debate about who may or may not have hijacked what.)

 

[jacob navia]

Boy, is my face red. I completely missed the subject line. :-}

OK, doesn't matter. No harm done

 

[CBFalconer]

<double-nit>
Depending on which country you are from, there may
be no law which differentiates between written and
verbal defamation.
</dn>

Well, the quality of this thread is so high that I am enthralled.
I suspect I can improve it with a <THREAD PLONK>.