Exceptions in C/C++

[Ian Collins]

Third: Mr Heathfield exerts a powerful effect because he's correct; if
he were wrong as often as Mr Navia is, and as rude when corrected,
he'd get similar treatment.

When someone is correct on a technical matter, or expresses the majority
opinion on a meta issue, there is no need to influence anyone.

When Richard is wrong, there a plenty here who are keen to tell him and
when they do, he comes clean. Which is more than can be said for
certain other contributors to this thread.

Anyway, why are we giving an anonymous coward troll the pleasure of a
debate?

 

[Joe Wright]

AT> Perhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a
AT> good example of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5z> where
AT> Heathfield's true colors are well and truly shown.

I've been participating in this newsgroup for over a decade, long
enough to remember the Scott Nuds and Portable ASM debacle; I don't
think I need an anonymous troll telling me what to think about
regulars of long standing.

Further, why are you trying to make this a personal attack on Mr
Heathfield? The limits on topicality that he encourages are the ones
supported by the vast majority of people who bothered to respond to
that thread, started by the same Mr Heathfield in response to
criticisms like yours that his view of topicality was too narrow.

Charlton

Twink is a troll.

 

[CBFalconer]

First: "we" know no such thing about sock puppets; if you want
this allegation to be taken seriously, you need to provide
evidence.

Second: Jacob Navia does a sufficient job of eliminating himself,
because it is impossible to have any sort of discussion with him
if you disagree with him.


Third: Mr Heathfield exerts a powerful effect because he's
correct; if he were wrong as often as Mr Navia is, and as rude
when corrected, he'd get similar treatment.

Fourth: introducing comparisons to Hitler and allegations of
anti-Semitism is ungrounded and inflammatory.

Why are you amusing and encouraging the silly troll? If you want
to address the newsgroup, rather than the troll, there is no need
for Hitler references.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Antoninus Twink said:

Perhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a good example
of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5z> where Heathfield's true colors
are well and truly shown.

From that thread:


"istartedi":> > p.s., C really needs standard graphics.
Emmanuel Delaheye:> For a toaster or a traffic light controller?

> Very interesing.

Richard Heathfield:> Actually, I agree with the other guy. Traffic light
controllers might well need to provide graphical
feedback to - say - service engineers. As for
toasters, presumably if you are writing code
specifically for an ungraphical toaster, you
wouldn't bother calling C's standard graphics.

So, in the very thread that you claim (and having re-read all my
contributions to that thread, I agree that it) represents my "true
colours", we see my advocacy of adding a standard graphics interface to
the C language. Not a long advocacy, since strictly speaking it's OT for
clc (although of course it would be bang on topic for csc), but it does at
least demonstrate that the view that I'm some kind of reactionary, longing
for the restoration of the 1970s, is flawed.

As for the rest of that thread, it seems to me to be a reasonable defence
of the reasons for topicality.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Antoninus Twink said:

This is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will really
fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when your actions in
this group (constant sniping, constant "you're off topic" posts) give
the lie to this claim day after day?

Actually, I try to avoid telling people they're off-topic, and I try to
avoid "sniping". I don't always succeed, but then I never claimed to be
perfect.

Furthermore, I *do* think the topicality of this group should be broadened
a little, *BUT* the majority of regular contributors here disagree with me
on that, and I abide by the consensus, rather than seeking to impose my
own view of topicality on the group.

So, as usual, you are completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Antoninus Twink said:

I think you should try to shake off the spell Heathfield casts over
people and look at the evidence. In the thread linked to above, here is
a direct quote: "If we didn't defend topicality, the S/N ratio would be
much lower than it currently is. ... People who continually ignore the
topicality of this group /do/ get yelled at, of course, and IMHO quite
rightly." Are these the words of a topicality moderate, or of a zealot
and a net-nanny?


Well, Heathfield knows all about personal attacks.

Yes, someone even threatened to break my nose because he didn't understand
something or other about strings.

We now know that he has been using sock puppets

Then you "know" a falsehood, because I have done no such thing.

to carry out the nastiest elements of his vendetta against Jacob Navia

There is no such vendetta. If the guy posts sensible stuff, I'll agree with
him and support him, and indeed I have done so in the past. If the guy
posts idiocy, I'll attack the idiocy, and indeed I have done so in the
past. If it seems like a vendetta, that's just because the ratio between
his sensible stuff and his idiocy is so low. That's his problem, not mine.

- his strategy is obviously to try to
eliminate Jacob, who might otherwise be a counterbalance to his
ultra-narrow view of topicality.

No, my strategy is to discuss C.

Heathfield exerts such a powerful effect over the group

I don't know why you think this. If I were able and willing to bend this
group to my will, GTK+ and the Win32 API would be topical by now. But I'm
*not* able to bend the group to my will and, more to the point, I'm not
*willing* to bend it to my will. I abide not by *my* views on what should
be topical, but by the consensus view of the group on what should be
topical.

because he has a great deal of personal charisma.

Here, I have to agree with you. You, on the other hand, do not. "Antoninus
Twink" is part of the problem. If it is your real name, I sympathise. But
if not, I recommend that you change it to something more charismatic.
That's your first step. Your second step is to stop being such a bozo.
Bozos are never charismatic.

This isn't necessarily a good thing -
we can all think of a German leader from the last century who was
extremely charismatic but did some terrible things. (It's an interesting
coincidence that the target of Heathfield's persecution has a Jewish
name...)

Godwin's Law applies. For the record, my wife's family were thrown out of
their Hannover home by the Nazis. As for anti-Semitism, I've never
understood it. To me, discrimination on *any* grounds (other than merit)
seems stupid and self-defeating.

Comparing me to Hitler was a big mistake, which has destroyed any
credibility that might still have been clinging to you in tattered shreds.

Don't bother to apologise. It would be meaningless and therefore valueless.
Just carry on in your pitiful little world of sniping and biting, while I
get on with helping people to learn about C.

Or, of course, you could grow up. The choice is yours.

 

[Bart van Ingen Schenau]

If you must, you can program in assembler.

Yes, and sometimes it is the best solution.

If I must I can do without a debugger, using edlin for editing,
etc.

Actually, it is quite often that I don't have a debugger available or
that a debugger affects the behaviour of the code too much.
You learn to live with that fact and you simply use other tools that
are available for tracking down bugs.

But why must you?

If I really want to use features that are not available in C, I turn
to some other language that does have the features I want.
There is such a wealth of languages with different strengths and
features that there will always be one that fits my needs. I see no
reason to add 'enhancements' to C if there is some other language that
I can use to get those 'enhancements'.

This is the point!

All of them are useful, and once you have them it is obvious that they
give you more development possibilities:

o fixed point numbers
o bound checked arrays
o container access to abstract data types.

They allow you to do things that in most environments
are considered normal. Why must C remain at this
level? There is NO REASON.

This sounds to me like: Lets take all these features that I like in
other languages and add them to C.
Now, if we ask another 100 C developers what they would like to add,
you end up with a list that would C make a more complex beast than C+
+.
So, what makes you so special that the features you mention must be
added to C, but not those features that others come up with?

Bart v Ingen Schenau

 

[jacob navia]

Actually, it is quite often that I don't have a debugger available or
that a debugger affects the behaviour of the code too much.
You learn to live with that fact and you simply use other tools that
are available for tracking down bugs.


If I really want to use features that are not available in C, I turn
to some other language that does have the features I want.
There is such a wealth of languages with different strengths and
features that there will always be one that fits my needs. I see no
reason to add 'enhancements' to C if there is some other language that
I can use to get those 'enhancements'.

Of course there are a wealth of monster languages available but they
are the wrong solution: adding more complexity to software instead of
keeping it simple:

o C++ is *the* monster language.
o Java/C# Proprietary stuff that is slow, memory hungry because
of their virtual machine runtime
o Basic. No standard, you are at the mercy of the changes Microsoft
makes to the language.

The choice of C is because it is a non OO language, that is basically
very simple. What looks like a paradox it is not any: I want to keep the
simplicity of C and *at the same time* I want to enhance it so it
can be used a s a normal programming language.

The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.

This sounds to me like: Lets take all these features that I like in
other languages and add them to C.

This is not what I have ever proposed. I proposed 2 major enhancements:
operator overloading, and try/catch. That is all.

Now, if we ask another 100 C developers what they would like to add,
you end up with a list that would C make a more complex beast than C+
+.

What do you want to say with that statement?
If you ask 100 C++ developers what do they need you would end up with
the same answer.

So, what makes you so special that the features you mention must be
added to C, but not those features that others come up with?

Bart v Ingen Schenau

There is nothing "special" about try/catch. It fills a hole in C,
a hole that is needed in one of the fields where C is actually used:
embedded systems.

Operator overloading is a technique used in venerable languages like
FORTRAN, BASIC, what have you.

Nothing really complex.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Hey, dumb ass, guess what?

[snip]

This is the only level of discussion that the "regulars" are able to
master.

jacob, this "rosewater" person is a troll whom the "regulars" have
either condemned or ignored. There's a huge difference between his
stupid and offensive insults and the criticism that's been directed at
you by some of the rest of us. Don't make the mistake of thinking
that "rosewater" speaks for anyone but him/herself.

And as one of the "regulars", I'm a bit insulted at being lumped in
with this troll.

My advice (which you're under no obligation to follow) is to add
"rosewater" to your killfile. He or she isn't worth the effort of a
response.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

The choice of C is because it is a non OO language, that is basically
very simple. What looks like a paradox it is not any: I want to keep the
simplicity of C and *at the same time* I want to enhance it so it
can be used a s a normal programming language.

C can already be used as a normal programming language. If that is your
only goal, no enhancements are required.

The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.

I can't speak for other regulars, but *this* regular wants no such thing.
This regular wants C to retain the things that make it so useful:
simplicity, speed, power, portability. The more features you can pack into
it without compromising those benefits, the better. The problem with C99
is not that it is *new*, but that it is not widely implemented. If I write
a program using arbitrary C99 features, I cannot guarantee that it will be
possible to use that program on arbitrary hosted platforms (let alone
freestanding platforms). The problem with C99 is not that it represents
*change*, but that implementors have stayed away from it in droves.

It is now eight years since C99 was adopted. How many implementations do we
have that conform to C99? I can't find the list now, but last time I
looked it was about four, none of which are mainstream.

Microsoft doesn't conform to C99. Borland doesn't conform to C99. GNU
doesn't conform to C99. So even Windows users will struggle to find C99
conformance.

If you want to advocate changes to C, fine - we *have* changes all ready to
go and all formalised in a signed-off international standard, and all you
have to do is to lobby Microsoft, Borland, and GNU to get their act
together and get a C99 implementation working. (Good luck with that.)

Once we've got those changes implemented, maybe then it will make sense to
look at some more. But endless proposals of changes will simply back up in
a queue if there isn't some way to persuade implementors that those
changes are worthwhile enough to implement.

<snip>

 

[Keith Thompson]

The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.

[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

Those of us who program in C do not have the option of using features
such as overloading and exception handling that (a) are not defined by
the standard, and (b) are not provided by most implementations.
Nevertheless, we manage to muddle along producing code that, if we're
careful and lucky, actually does something useful. We do this, for
the most part, by programming in standard C. We find it useful to
have a forum for discussing standard C, not the additional features
that, useful though they might be, just aren't available to us. Why
must you intrude on that forum with off-topic postings?

 

[Doug]

Antoninus Twink said:

Yes he does. He's pretty good at them. The ones I like best are the
subtle ones, where you're not even sure if the target realises they've
just been insulted.

Yes, someone even threatened to break my nose because he didn't understand
something or other about strings.

I don't know the story behind this, and from what you've said in the
past, this episode is obviously unacceptable. Threat of physical
violence is, well, "just not on".

But I can believe the story, very easily. If you behave in real life
as you do here, then frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen all the
time to you. You are intentionally aggressive and rude; you should
not be surprised when one of your victims finally snaps.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug said:

Yes he does. He's pretty good at them. The ones I like best are the
subtle ones, where you're not even sure if the target realises they've
just been insulted.

These would be the same ones where the source doesn't realise it either,
presumably.

I don't know the story behind this, and from what you've said in the
past, this episode is obviously unacceptable. Threat of physical
violence is, well, "just not on".

Right. So direct your venom against those who deserve it, please.

But I can believe the story, very easily. If you behave in real life
as you do here, then frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen all the
time to you. You are intentionally aggressive and rude; you should
not be surprised when one of your victims finally snaps.

You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Hey, dumb ass, guess what?

[snip]

This is the only level of discussion that the "regulars" are able to
master.

jacob, this "rosewater" person is a troll whom the "regulars" have
either condemned or ignored. There's a huge difference between his
stupid and offensive insults and the criticism that's been directed at
you by some of the rest of us. Don't make the mistake of thinking
that "rosewater" speaks for anyone but him/herself.

That's the whole point of a sock puppet. To say things that the
puppeteer wants to say, but not under their own name.

Attacking from both sides, you know.

And as one of the "regulars", I'm a bit insulted at being lumped in
with this troll.

Aw, poor baby. You'll get over it.

My advice (which you're under no obligation to follow) is to add
"rosewater" to your killfile. He or she isn't worth the effort of a
response.

He's as entertaining as his puppeteer (RH). I wouldn't miss either one.

 

[jacob navia]

The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.

[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from the surface of
the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL.

I tried to propose my changes to the ISO comitee but there is NO
ISO C group anymore in France, as it was 5 years ago. The C++ group
is very active but they are not really interested in C.

In my company there is a ban on C. We have to develop in C++ only.

Neither Microsoft nor gcc have implemented C99. And this is NOT because
C99 is bad, but because nobody gives a dam about C. Neither Microsoft
nor GNU gcc.

C is used in some embedded systems, but they are switching more and
more to C++ because the embedded systems of today use powerful CPUs.

The C committee and this newsgroup in their frozen conservatism
enforce the idea that C is an obsolete solution for the programming
problems of today. The obsolete C library is nowhere being improved,
functions like gets() will stay there for years and years still.
Others, no less dangerous, are still there: asctime() and many others.

C is associated with security flaws and buffer overflows because the
lack of a string type. C strings are a nightmare but nowhere is a
solution proposed.

And (to come to the subject of this thread) try/catch, a construct used
in many programming languagtes is still only provided by some compilers
as an extension, and is not part of the language.

> Those of us who program in C do not have the option of using features
> such as overloading and exception handling that (a) are not defined by
> the standard, and (b) are not provided by most implementations.

This is of course part of the problem.

By restricting all discussion to C89, the regulars forbid any discussion
of improvements to the language. Their attitude of destroying all
discussions tends to "prove" that nobody is interested in improving C,
and that the C programmers are completely unaware of the language
problems.

> Nevertheless, we manage to muddle along producing code that, if we're
> careful and lucky, actually does something useful.

It is precisely that it *could* be that we rely less on luck and
more in a better language design???

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.

[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from the surface of
the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL.

This doesn't actually matter as much as you seem to think. The point is
that C is a programmer's tool, but not the only tool by any means. When it
is the right tool for the job, people will use it for that job. When some
other tool is more appropriate, people will use that tool instead. There
is no requirement whatsoever for all tools to be able to do all things. In
fact, that's a disadvantage in some ways.

Look at the Swiss Army knife, for example, which has so many bits and bobs
that it's practically impossible to identify what they're all for. Now
look at some of the traditional tools in a craftsman's toolbox: tenon saw,
rip saw, chisels, mallet, oilstone, bradawl... lots of simple tools. We
don't ask a tenon saw to be a chisel, and we don't ask a bradawl to be an
oilstone. There is a definite advantage in simplicity, and C is presently
very simple.

Neither Microsoft nor gcc have implemented C99. And this is NOT because
C99 is bad, but because nobody gives a dam about C. Neither Microsoft
nor GNU gcc.

Microsoft claims that it is customer-driven, and that its customers are not
asking for C99. That is neither good nor bad. It's simply a fact (or
possibly a rock, according to Chris Dollin). So Microsoft's position is
that it would be a waste of money, brains and time to implement C99. And
they're probably right - hardly anyone is interested. C has four great
advantages: portability, power, speed, and simplicity. C99 isn't portable,
so nobody uses it. (And it might also be reasoned that it isn't portable
*because* nobody uses it - Catch-22.) For those who need portability,
power, speed, and simplicity, C90 already does what is required. And if
people need something that C90 can't do, they can use extensions for
particular platforms and isolate those extensions with an abstraction
layer.

C is used in some embedded systems, but they are switching more and
more to C++ because the embedded systems of today use powerful CPUs.

I don't know whether that is true. If it isn't true, it's irrelevant, but
if it *is* true, so what? People are allowed to choose what programming
languages they use, aren't they?

The C committee and this newsgroup in their frozen conservatism
enforce the idea that C is an obsolete solution for the programming
problems of today.

Well, I don't think C is obsolete. It is still the first language I turn to
for most programming tasks.

The obsolete C library is nowhere being improved,

You've seen what happens when a committee tries to improve a library -
everyone ignores the result. There are lots of C libraries out there to do
all kinds of fabulous things, and more are being written all the time.

functions like gets() will stay there for years and years still.
Others, no less dangerous, are still there: asctime() and many others.

Fine - so don't use 'em. End of problem.

C is associated with security flaws and buffer overflows because the
lack of a string type. C strings are a nightmare but nowhere is a
solution proposed.

Security flaws and buffer overflows happen because programs are written too
fast by people who don't understand the issues and who don't bother to
destruct-test their code. Bugs can happen in any language. As for C
strings being a nightmare, well, I don't lose any sleep over them. They're
a nice simple hack, and if I need something more robust, well, it's easy
to write - and many people have indeed written string libraries of their
own.

And (to come to the subject of this thread) try/catch, a construct used
in many programming languagtes is still only provided by some compilers
as an extension, and is not part of the language.

Right. If you want it to be part of the language, *all* you have to do is
get ISO to agree, and then get all the implementors to implement it. It
sounds simple but it isn't. In practice, your chances are very low. But
they are lower still if you spend all your time lobbying in a group like
this, which discusses the language that exists, not the language as you
would like it to be. I suggest raising the matter in comp.std.c instead.

This is of course part of the problem.

Yes - the problem is that these things are not part of the standard and not
provided by most implementations. If you want to change that, you have to
change the standard, and you can't change the standard *here*, because
almost nobody in this newsgroup has any influence over what is
standardised. If you want to convince ISO to change the language, you need
to talk to ISO.

By restricting all discussion to C89,

This newsgroup considers K&R C and C99 to be topical as well.

the regulars forbid any discussion of improvements to the language.

Nobody here has the power to forbid any discussion whatsoever on any topic
whatsoever. All they can do is express their opinion, just as you can
express yours. Nevertheless, the consensus of the group is that changes to
the language are best discussed in comp.std.c (although there *is* a
certain amount of sympathy here for the idea of discussing enhancements to
C).

To get the language changed, you have to do two things: (a) persuade ISO,
and (b) persuade the implementors as a whole.

To persuade ISO, you have to demonstrate that a widespread need exists for
the proposed change, and it will help your case if you have a reference
implementation that implements the change. So you are in a stronger
position than most to get the language changed, because you have your very
own implementation to muck about with.

To persuade implementors is much harder. The chances are good that several
implementors already have extensions that implement approximately what you
have in mind - probably, alas, all using slightly different syntax - and
so they're not going to be too ready to risk damage to their customer base
by changing the way things work.

Their attitude of destroying all
discussions tends to "prove" that nobody is interested in improving C,

Those who are interested in taking part in discussions directed at
improving the language are very likely to be reading comp.std.c, which is
the best newsgroup for discussing language improvements.

and that the C programmers are completely unaware of the language
problems.

It is at least partly to help people to gain awareness of language problems
that some of us read and contribute to this group.

It is precisely that it *could* be that we rely less on luck and
more in a better language design???

If you want to design a language better than C, that's wonderful. Go do it!
Nobody is stopping you. Once you have done so, why not form a newsgroup in
which to discuss that language?

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia said:

[...]
The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from the surface of
the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL.

This doesn't actually matter as much as you seem to think.

Thanks. This confirms what I said above:

> The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
> "regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
> bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
> alternative.

So, you confirm that actually, if C disappears "this doesn't actually
matter as much as you seem to think".

OK. The rest of your post is the same attitude:

There are stupidly designed functions in the library?

"do not use them".

Fine.

C strings are a nightmare?
"As for C strings being a nightmare, well, I don't lose any sleep over
them."

Yeah

Sleep well.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

jacob navia said:

Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of
the "regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in
its bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from the surface of
the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL.

This doesn't actually matter as much as you seem to think.

Thanks. This confirms what I said above:

If you think so, then I can't have expressed myself clearly enough.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to put it any more clearly.

<snip>

 

[jameskuyper]

The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.

[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

[A lot of text, which contained not a single citation of an article in which anyone expressed such a desire.]

Why did you bother responding to that comment, if you weren't actually
planning on answering the question?

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I want is a language standard
sufficiently stable that I can write code in accordance with that
standard, and have it still work as intended at least a couple of
decades into the future. I know that some of my 10-year old code is
still in use, and I suspect that some of my older stuff is, as well,
so this doesn't strike me as an excessively optimistic take on the
longevity of my own code. It shouldn't need a complete re-write every
few years to keep up with the latest changes to the language; I've got
much better things to do with my time.

That doesn't mean that the language can't change, merely that the
committee should give a reasonable amount of consideration to the
issue of maintaining backward compatibility. What I consider "a
reasonable amount of consideration" is far more than you're
comfortable with, judging from the changes you've proposed.

I also want a clear distinction maintained between the proper domain
for the language, and the proper domain for third-party libraries. In
my opinion, complex arithmetic, fixed-point arithmetic, and threading
are all examples of things that should be supported at the language
level. GC is an example I of something I don't think should be
supported, but if it is supported, it's best supported at the language
level as well. On the other hand, I don't think a GUI interface is
something that needs to be specified at the language level; that's in
the proper domain for third-party libraries. You seem more like the
kind of guy who wants everything that you think is desirable included
in the language.

....

By restricting all discussion to C89, the regulars forbid any discussion

The "regulars" have no more power to forbid any kind of discussion
than you do. The most that they can do is object, which is a power you
possess just as much as they do..

 

[Kenny McCormack]

jacob navia swooned: ....

If you think so, then I can't have expressed myself clearly enough.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to put it any more clearly.

You two really need to just up and get a room somewhere.