COMPILER

[Al Balmer]

But of course that's not OT because the core element here are enjoying
savaging it.

I haven't seen that. I've seen people discussing the deficiencies of
the *C code* in the book, which is clearly topical here. The book
itself is about algorithms, not language. I've seen little discussion
of the algorithms, which would not be topical.

 

[Al Balmer]

Richard said:



If the product were any good, its proponents would not be driven to
spamming techie newsgroups in a desperate attempt to drum up custom.

Now, that's not a nice thing to say about Richard ;-)

 

[Richard]

I haven't seen that. I've seen people discussing the deficiencies of
the *C code* in the book, which is clearly topical here. The book
itself is about algorithms, not language. I've seen little discussion
of the algorithms, which would not be topical.

I think someone posted a list of "definitions" for certain posters. I
guess you would call me a troll, but really, I am not - I'm just someone
who feels that this has become one of the most knee jerk, obnoxious and
unnecessarily rude groups on Usenet. Today's little "Undefined
behaviour" thread is a prime example.

The comments on the book are varied. Yes you are right, many are about
the C code. Many are also savaging the structure (OT) and the algorithms
(OT) themselves. It is not one rule for some and one rule for others. If
the core element here can wade off topic, then I think it's only fair
that the same people show a little understanding in new posters and
others doing much the same in order to help and cajole someone in the
right direction.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I think someone posted a list of "definitions" for certain posters. I
guess you would call me a troll, but really, I am not - I'm just someone
who feels that this has become one of the most knee jerk, obnoxious and
unnecessarily rude groups on Usenet. Today's little "Undefined
behaviour" thread is a prime example.[/QUOTE]

That someone would be me. And, we are now insisting on being called
"contrarians". We no longer respond to the "T word".

 

[John Smith]

For the same reason many people don't. That Usenet is full of Kooks who
take Usenet into the real world?

Of course, being called "John Smith" you're fairly prolific enough not to
be singled out ....

I think the word you're looking for is along the lines of
abundant, numerous, prevalent, etc. You have no way of knowing
whether I am prolific or not.

JS