coderwiki.com is starting and needs you!

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by da404LewZer, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. da404LewZer

    da404LewZer Guest

    i'm starting a wiki on coding, keeping everything seperate. anyone who
    wants to help check out the site. i want to document every function for
    every language ever


    www.coderwiki.com
     
    da404LewZer, Jun 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. da404LewZer said:

    > i'm starting a wiki on coding, keeping everything seperate. anyone who
    > wants to help check out the site. i want to document every function for
    > every language ever
    >
    >
    > www.coderwiki.com


    From "hello world" example:

    "-where stdio.h is the name of library."

    Er, no.

    I suggest you fix what you've got before adding anything else.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jun 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. da404LewZer

    pete Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >
    > da404LewZer said:
    >
    > > i'm starting a wiki on coding, keeping everything seperate.
    > > anyone who wants to help check out the site.
    > > i want to document every function for every language ever
    > >
    > >
    > > www.coderwiki.com

    >
    > From "hello world" example:
    >
    > "-where stdio.h is the name of library."
    >
    > Er, no.
    >
    > I suggest you fix what you've got before adding anything else.


    Now it says:
    "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."

    stdio.h is a "standard header".
    Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    in any particular implementation of C,
    is unspecified by the C standard.

    --
    pete
     
    pete, Jun 22, 2006
    #3
  4. pete said:

    >
    > Now it says:
    > "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >
    > stdio.h is a "standard header".
    > Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    > in any particular implementation of C,
    > is unspecified by the C standard.


    In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki suffers from
    - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jun 22, 2006
    #4
  5. Richard Heathfield <> writes:

    > pete said:
    >
    >>
    >> Now it says:
    >> "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >>
    >> stdio.h is a "standard header".
    >> Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    >> in any particular implementation of C,
    >> is unspecified by the C standard.

    >
    > In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki suffers from
    > - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant.
    >


    Or, in all fairness, how well informed. No different from any techy
    newsgroup really where google will reveal all sorts of wrong answers,
    misleading information and general rubbish : invariably bad data is unremovable
    though - giving Wikis the edge when uptodate and well maintained.

    Wikis are, in general, a good thing IMO. They are certainly gaining in
    popularity.

    Thats not to say, however, that I would support any pie in the sky idea
    of documenting "every function ever" ...
     
    Richard G. Riley, Jun 22, 2006
    #5
  6. da404LewZer

    Default User Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:

    > pete said:
    >
    > >
    > > Now it says:
    > > "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."


    > In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki
    > suffers from - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how
    > ignorant.



    I have to say that the page now has some suspiciously correct
    information. I think some of the people here have been doing some work.



    Brian
     
    Default User, Jun 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Default User said:

    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >
    >> pete said:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Now it says:
    >> > "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."

    >
    >> In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki
    >> suffers from - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how
    >> ignorant.

    >
    > I have to say that the page now has some suspiciously correct
    > information. I think some of the people here have been doing some work.


    ....which is fine as far as it goes, and very public-spirited, but are they
    signing up to make corrections to it every day for the next N years? I
    don't think so. So their good work is very likely either to be undone
    completely or to be swamped by more dreck.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jun 22, 2006
    #7
  8. da404LewZer

    Richard Bos Guest

    Richard G. Riley <> wrote:

    > Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    >
    > > In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki suffers from
    > > - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant.

    >
    > Or, in all fairness, how well informed. No different from any techy
    > newsgroup really where google will reveal all sorts of wrong answers,
    > misleading information and general rubbish : invariably bad data is unremovable
    > though - giving Wikis the edge when uptodate and well maintained.


    Wrong. On any techy newsgroup, when misinformation is published, one
    will generally find a follow-up posted that corrects the bad
    information, and that correction is just as unremovable as the original
    rubbish. On a Wiki, when misinformation is posted, anyone can correct
    that misinformation - and anyone else can, _and will_, re-uncorrect that
    correction just as quickly.
    On a newsgroup, the winner is the reader with the patience to read the
    entire thread rather than the single post. On a Wiki, the winner is the
    poster with the most patience to keep re-"correcting" this rubbish
    poster who keeps asserting that void main() is bad C, and the patient
    reader, no matter how patient, loses out.

    > Wikis are, in general, a good thing IMO. They are certainly gaining in
    > popularity.


    Popularity means nothing. James Blunt is also gaining popularity, and
    he's probably the worst example of nothingness to rise to the Top of the
    Pops recently - and that's some accolade given the existence of Girls
    Disallowed.

    The mere existence of Wikis is, in general, a good thing. _Relying_ on a
    Wiki, for anything, but especially for correctness, is quite egregiously
    unwise.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Jun 23, 2006
    #8
  9. (Richard Bos) writes:

    > Richard G. Riley <> wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    >>
    >> > In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki suffers from
    >> > - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant.

    >>
    >> Or, in all fairness, how well informed. No different from any techy
    >> newsgroup really where google will reveal all sorts of wrong answers,
    >> misleading information and general rubbish : invariably bad data is unremovable
    >> though - giving Wikis the edge when uptodate and well maintained.

    >
    > Wrong. On any techy newsgroup, when misinformation is published, one
    > will generally find a follow-up posted that corrects the bad
    > information, and that correction is just as unremovable as the
    > original


    Not wrong at all. There might well be corrections and followups but the
    original bad info/posts tends to stay there. Surely you dont refute that?

    > rubbish. On a Wiki, when misinformation is posted, anyone can correct
    > that misinformation - and anyone else can, _and will_, re-uncorrect that
    > correction just as quickly.


    If they have malice aforethough this could be a problem. See the Beorge
    Bush wiki for an example.

    > On a newsgroup, the winner is the reader with the patience to read the
    > entire thread rather than the single post. On a Wiki, the winner is
    > the


    Some can be somewhat long and winding :-;

    > poster with the most patience to keep re-"correcting" this rubbish
    > poster who keeps asserting that void main() is bad C, and the patient
    > reader, no matter how patient, loses out.
    >
    >> Wikis are, in general, a good thing IMO. They are certainly gaining in
    >> popularity.

    >
    > Popularity means nothing. James Blunt is also gaining popularity, and


    Popularity often means that people find a use for them : and in techy
    areas its not really the equivalent of "oh, hes gorgeous" ...

    > he's probably the worst example of nothingness to rise to the Top of the
    > Pops recently - and that's some accolade given the existence of Girls
    > Disallowed.
    >
    > The mere existence of Wikis is, in general, a good thing. _Relying_ on a
    > Wiki, for anything, but especially for correctness, is quite egregiously
    > unwise.


    I would nearly always cross check a wiki. But it is fast and convenient
    and I think you are being a little too distrustful. Certainly with
    setting up some Linux systems recently they were invaluable whereas
    usenet was a hotchpotch of coflicting threads that invariably ended up
    in slanging matches.

    A wiki might have errors, it is usually concise enough that finding the
    errors doesnt take long. This is not the case with millions of usenet
    threads : there is invariably NOT a summary post hiliting who was wrong
    and who was right.

    A wiki certainly is not a replacement for usenet discussions.

    >
    > Richard


    --
     
    Richard G. Riley, Jun 23, 2006
    #9
  10. da404LewZer

    Chris Dollin Guest

    da404LewZer wrote:

    > i'm starting a wiki on coding, keeping everything seperate. anyone who
    > wants to help check out the site. i want to document every function for
    > every language ever.


    There's an infinite number of them. What's your budget?

    --
    Chris "(\x. x), (\x. (\x. x)), (\x. (\x. (\x. x))) ..." Dollin
    "We did not have time to find out everything we wanted to know." /A Clash of Cymbals/
     
    Chris Dollin, Jun 23, 2006
    #10
  11. Richard G. Riley said:

    > (Richard Bos) writes:
    >


    <snip>

    >> On a Wiki, when misinformation is posted, anyone can correct
    >> that misinformation - and anyone else can, _and will_, re-uncorrect that
    >> correction just as quickly.

    >
    > If they have malice aforethough this could be a problem. See the Beorge
    > Bush wiki for an example.


    It doesn't need to be malice, Richard. Richard is quite correct - the
    overall trend for Wiki technical articles is in the direction of increasing
    inaccuracy. This is certainly true in my own experience of Wikis. Both on
    wikipedia and the clc wiki, I've spotted errors which I've corrected
    (correctly!), but my corrections were edited until the articles were once
    again incorrect.

    In fairness to the clc wiki, I should add that that particular "correction"
    was eventually put right again - but the more people involved, the less
    likely that becomes.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jun 23, 2006
    #11
  12. da404LewZer

    pemo Guest

    pete wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>
    >> da404LewZer said:
    >>
    >>> i'm starting a wiki on coding, keeping everything seperate.
    >>> anyone who wants to help check out the site.
    >>> i want to document every function for every language ever
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> www.coderwiki.com

    >>
    >> From "hello world" example:
    >>
    >> "-where stdio.h is the name of library."
    >>
    >> Er, no.
    >>
    >> I suggest you fix what you've got before adding anything else.

    >
    > Now it says:
    > "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >
    > stdio.h is a "standard header".
    > Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    > in any particular implementation of C,
    > is unspecified by the C standard.


    Yet there are around 100 references to it in the C99 standard.

    --
    ==============
    *Not a pedant*
    ==============
     
    pemo, Jun 23, 2006
    #12
  13. pemo said:

    > pete wrote:
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>>
    >>> da404LewZer said:
    >>>
    >>>> i'm starting a wiki on coding, keeping everything seperate.
    >>>> anyone who wants to help check out the site.
    >>>> i want to document every function for every language ever
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> www.coderwiki.com
    >>>
    >>> From "hello world" example:
    >>>
    >>> "-where stdio.h is the name of library."
    >>>
    >>> Er, no.
    >>>
    >>> I suggest you fix what you've got before adding anything else.

    >>
    >> Now it says:
    >> "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >>
    >> stdio.h is a "standard header".
    >> Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    >> in any particular implementation of C,
    >> is unspecified by the C standard.

    >
    > Yet there are around 100 references to it in the C99 standard.


    I can find plenty of references to the <stdio.h> header, but not even a
    single reference to a <stdio.h> "file". Please enlighten me.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jun 23, 2006
    #13
  14. da404LewZer

    pemo Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > pemo said:
    >
    >> pete wrote:
    >>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> da404LewZer said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> i'm starting a wiki on coding, keeping everything seperate.
    >>>>> anyone who wants to help check out the site.
    >>>>> i want to document every function for every language ever
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> www.coderwiki.com
    >>>>
    >>>> From "hello world" example:
    >>>>
    >>>> "-where stdio.h is the name of library."
    >>>>
    >>>> Er, no.
    >>>>
    >>>> I suggest you fix what you've got before adding anything else.
    >>>
    >>> Now it says:
    >>> "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >>>
    >>> stdio.h is a "standard header".
    >>> Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    >>> in any particular implementation of C,
    >>> is unspecified by the C standard.

    >>
    >> Yet there are around 100 references to it in the C99 standard.

    >
    > I can find plenty of references to the <stdio.h> header, but not even
    > a single reference to a <stdio.h> "file". Please enlighten me.


    Ahhh - I see!

    --
    ==============
    *Not a pedant*
    ==============
     
    pemo, Jun 23, 2006
    #14
  15. da404LewZer

    pemo Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > pete said:
    >
    >>
    >> Now it says:
    >> "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >>
    >> stdio.h is a "standard header".
    >> Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    >> in any particular implementation of C,
    >> is unspecified by the C standard.

    >
    > In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki
    > suffers from - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how
    > ignorant.


    Or malicious - I note that most of the content has now been deleted.

    --
    ==============
    *Not a pedant*
    ==============
     
    pemo, Jun 23, 2006
    #15
  16. da404LewZer

    Richard Bos Guest

    "Richard G. Riley" <> wrote:

    > (Richard Bos) writes:
    >
    > > Richard G. Riley <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    > >>
    > >> > In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki suffers from
    > >> > - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how ignorant.
    > >>
    > >> Or, in all fairness, how well informed. No different from any techy
    > >> newsgroup really where google will reveal all sorts of wrong answers,
    > >> misleading information and general rubbish : invariably bad data is unremovable
    > >> though - giving Wikis the edge when uptodate and well maintained.

    > >
    > > Wrong. On any techy newsgroup, when misinformation is published, one
    > > will generally find a follow-up posted that corrects the bad
    > > information, and that correction is just as unremovable as the
    > > original

    >
    > Not wrong at all. There might well be corrections and followups but the
    > original bad info/posts tends to stay there. Surely you dont refute that?


    No; what I refute is the conclusion you draw from that, which is that
    this makes Wikis better than newsgroups. IMO, it makes them worse.

    > > rubbish. On a Wiki, when misinformation is posted, anyone can correct
    > > that misinformation - and anyone else can, _and will_, re-uncorrect that
    > > correction just as quickly.

    >
    > If they have malice aforethough this could be a problem.


    _Everybody_ can edit a Wiki. That means that sooner or later you _will_
    have malice aforethought. There may be 90% good will out there, but
    there only needs to be a single troll to render a Wiki unreliable.

    > > On a newsgroup, the winner is the reader with the patience to read the
    > > entire thread rather than the single post. On a Wiki, the winner is
    > > the

    >
    > Some can be somewhat long and winding :-;


    If you can't be arsed to take some trouble to find reliable information,
    that's your problem, not mine or Usenet's.

    > > he's probably the worst example of nothingness to rise to the Top of the
    > > Pops recently - and that's some accolade given the existence of Girls
    > > Disallowed.
    > >
    > > The mere existence of Wikis is, in general, a good thing. _Relying_ on a
    > > Wiki, for anything, but especially for correctness, is quite egregiously
    > > unwise.

    >
    > I would nearly always cross check a wiki. But it is fast and convenient
    > and I think you are being a little too distrustful.


    I have seen too many reasons to trust them.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Jun 23, 2006
    #16
  17. pemo said:

    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >> pete said:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Now it says:
    >>> "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >>>
    >>> stdio.h is a "standard header".
    >>> Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    >>> in any particular implementation of C,
    >>> is unspecified by the C standard.

    >>
    >> In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki
    >> suffers from - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how
    >> ignorant.

    >
    > Or malicious - I note that most of the content has now been deleted.


    Not according to my browser.

    Incidentally, the "Hello World" page /still/ contains this text:

    "Standard input and output functions are prototyped [declared] in an
    'include file'"

    which is wrong. I also noticed this:

    "For example, there are standard functions for reading data, and outputting
    the same to the screen/terminal."

    which is simply false.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jun 23, 2006
    #17
  18. da404LewZer

    pemo Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > pemo said:
    >
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>> pete said:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Now it says:
    >>>> "-where stdio.h is the name of include file."
    >>>>
    >>>> stdio.h is a "standard header".
    >>>> Whether or not stdio.h exists as a file
    >>>> in any particular implementation of C,
    >>>> is unspecified by the C standard.
    >>>
    >>> In other words, it suffers from the same problem that any wiki
    >>> suffers from - editing can be carried out by anyone, no matter how
    >>> ignorant.

    >>
    >> Or malicious - I note that most of the content has now been deleted.

    >
    > Not according to my browser.
    >
    > Incidentally, the "Hello World" page /still/ contains this text:
    >
    > "Standard input and output functions are prototyped [declared] in an
    > 'include file'"
    >
    > which is wrong. I also noticed this:


    What, the use of 'file'?

    > "For example, there are standard functions for reading data, and
    > outputting the same to the screen/terminal."
    >
    > which is simply false.


    How so? Aren't printf and scanf /standard library functions/?

    Anyway, why are you telling me Richard?


    --
    ==============
    *Not a pedant*
    ==============
     
    pemo, Jun 23, 2006
    #18
  19. pemo said:
    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>
    >> Incidentally, the "Hello World" page /still/ contains this text:
    >>
    >> "Standard input and output functions are prototyped [declared] in an
    >> 'include file'"
    >>
    >> which is wrong. I also noticed this:

    >
    > What, the use of 'file'?


    Yes. It's not an "include file"; it's a standard header.

    >> "For example, there are standard functions for reading data, and
    >> outputting the same to the screen/terminal."
    >>
    >> which is simply false.

    >
    > How so? Aren't printf and scanf /standard library functions/?


    Sure they are. But printf doesn't output to the screen or terminal. It
    writes its data on the standard output stream. What happens to it after
    that is Not Its Problem. Yes, it /might/ end up on a screen or terminal,
    but it might not. C has no control over this.

    > Anyway, why are you telling me Richard?


    I'm telling comp.lang.c, to which you happen to be a subscriber. If I want
    exclusively to tell /you/ something, I'll be sure to drop you an email. :)

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jun 23, 2006
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >Richard G. Riley said:
    >> (Richard Bos) writes:


    >>> On a Wiki, when misinformation is posted, anyone can correct
    >>> that misinformation - and anyone else can, _and will_, re-uncorrect that
    >>> correction just as quickly.


    >> If they have malice aforethough this could be a problem. See the Beorge
    >> Bush wiki for an example.


    >It doesn't need to be malice, Richard. Richard is quite correct - the
    >overall trend for Wiki technical articles is in the direction of increasing
    >inaccuracy.


    Of course Richard, Richard, and Richard, not all Wikis are publicly
    editable.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Tobin, Jun 23, 2006
    #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.
Similar Threads
  1. da404LewZer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    261
    da404LewZer
    Jun 23, 2006
  2. da404lewzer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    380
    Robbie Hatley
    Jun 22, 2006
  3. pek
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,218
  4. da404LewZer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    82
    Dumaiu
    Jun 23, 2006
  5. da404LewZer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    86
    Randal L. Schwartz
    Apr 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page