help needed with filnames as command line arguments

I

Irrwahn Grausewitz

(e-mail address removed) (Craigb) wrote:

Of course now I'll be doing searches on your login to find out
what other tips I can glean.

Er, be careful, I'm not an expert, and thus my posts are often an
example for how to /not/ do things. You'd better do a search for
posts originating from regulars like (in no particular order):

Chris Torek
Dan Pop
Douglas A. Gwyn
Jack Klein
Richard Heathfield
...
<list incomplete>

Regards
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Irrwahn Grausewitz said:
(e-mail address removed) (Craigb) wrote:



Er, be careful, I'm not an expert, and thus my posts are often an
example for how to /not/ do things. You'd better do a search for
posts originating from regulars like (in no particular order):

Chris Torek
Dan Pop
Douglas A. Gwyn
Jack Klein
Richard Heathfield
...
<list incomplete>

Lawrence Kirby unfortunately hasn't been posting to clc for over
a year now, but for relative newbies who want to search the
archives, /Lawrence/ /Kirby/ stands second only to /Chris/ /Torek/
in the history of comp.lang.c for having spent _many_ years
posting readable, tolerant, tutorial articles that are not only
accurate and detailed, but written in a style that can be read
and understood by the neophyte as well as the expert.

I don't mean to suggest that others lack knowledge of C or even
longevity on c.l.c, but Chris and Larry stand out from the crowd
when it comes to style and writing ability.

Hence, along with Steve Summit's FAQ, using google to search for
articles by "Chris Torek ([email protected])" and/or
"Lawrence Kirby ([email protected])" is probably about
the most productive learning tool for C available on the web.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Floyd said:
Irrwahn Grausewitz <[email protected]> wrote:

(cough)

Add Ben Pfaff, Dann Corbit, Christian Bau, Joe Maun (not that he's been
around for a while either), Steve Summit (ditto, alas), and "those who know
me have no need of my name". If my name belongs on the list (which is
arguable), all these names most certainly belong on it too.

....even after my additions.
Lawrence Kirby unfortunately hasn't been posting to clc for over
a year now, but for relative newbies who want to search the
archives, /Lawrence/ /Kirby/ stands second only to /Chris/ /Torek/
in the history of comp.lang.c for having spent _many_ years
posting readable, tolerant, tutorial articles that are not only
accurate and detailed, but written in a style that can be read
and understood by the neophyte as well as the expert.

I will cheerfully second that statement. Lawrence Kirby is a byword (all
right, make that two bywords) for excellence in comp.lang.c.
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Richard Heathfield said:
I will cheerfully second that statement. Lawrence Kirby is a byword (all
right, make that two bywords) for excellence in comp.lang.c.

I'm hard pressed to separate either Larry or Chris out as
topping the other. Chris has been posting longer, and Larry
posted more often.

Larry always made it a point to attempt an appropriate answer
for as many questions as possible. Chris tends to pick and
choose items that need in depth discussion with lots of
background in order to convey the significance of the answer,
and to apply it to not just the original question but to one's
entire view and understanding of the language (and programming
in general). Larry helped people deal with constructs, while
Chris writes about concepts.

At one time, just prior to C89, there was some serious thought
given to collecting the c.l.c articles of Chris Torek for
publication as a C tutorial. That became a moot when the
Standard was released, because the articles all pertained to K&R
C. Ten years later, there once again was just about the same
situation where Chris had posted enough articles to make a great
book...

However, I wonder if Chris has ever given any thought to the
specifics of his writing style? And if he would be willing to
consider a tutorial for writing technical articles for Usenet?
Or, maybe even just a few words on the subject?

(I wouldn't expect him to address it directly to Dan Pop, but
then again others here could eventually use it for exactly
that... :)
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Floyd said:
I'm hard pressed to separate either Larry or Chris out as
topping the other. Chris has been posting longer, and Larry
posted more often.

Chris Torek is /another/ couple of bywords for excellence in comp.lang.c.
Sorry for not making it clearer. :)

I see no reason to attempt to classify either as "all-time clc champ". They
are, as you noted, very different. Just about their only points in common
are their cluefulness and their unfailing courtesy. In fact, I think both
would regard any kind of ranking as rather silly, although neither would
dream of saying so.
 
D

Dave Thompson

On 20 Oct 2003 03:57:17 -0800, Floyd Davidson <[email protected]>
wrote:
Lawrence Kirby unfortunately hasn't been posting to clc for over
a year now, but for relative newbies who want to search the
archives, /Lawrence/ /Kirby/ stands second only to /Chris/ /Torek/
in the history of comp.lang.c for having spent _many_ years
posting readable, tolerant, tutorial articles <snip>
Hence, along with Steve Summit's FAQ, using google to search for
articles by "Chris Torek ([email protected])" and/or
"Lawrence Kirby ([email protected])" is probably about
the most productive learning tool for C available on the web.

Don't specify that exact address for Chris, he's had to change
(several times, if I recall) so you won't find everything. Without
actually trying, I'd guess Torek + comp.lang.c should be enough.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net
 
C

Chris Torek

At one time, just prior to C89, there was some serious thought
given to collecting the c.l.c articles of Chris Torek for
publication as a C tutorial. That became a moot when the
Standard was released ...

I must also note that there is an enormous difference between
a "collection of vignettes" and a "complete novel", as it were.
However, I wonder if Chris has ever given any thought to the
specifics of his writing style? And if he would be willing to
consider a tutorial for writing technical articles for Usenet?
Or, maybe even just a few words on the subject?

I am not really sure what you mean by the first question. As for
the second or third -- well, it would help if I knew how I do it. :)
I think there are a few key points, however, that I could mention.

The first is simple enough. If you want to write good code, you
should read good code. If you want to write good prose, you should
read good prose. If you want to write good tutorials...

Obviously, you must know the material. But in this case there is
a subtler, yet key, point: you must also know the audience, after
a fashion. Here, Usenet has an advantage over books, because the
writers interact (to whatever limited extent) with their readers.
This means that the writer gets *some* feedback -- at the least,
something on the level of "oh I get it" vs "huh?" -- now and then.

Finally, there is no substitute for sitting back and thinking.
People say that Feynman's method of solving physics problems was:
(1) write down the problem; (2) sit and think; (3) write down the
answer. Not everyone can be a Feynman, but just about anyone can
do the "sit and think" part now and then. I think (after sitting
and thinking :) ) that this is probably the hardest part of the
whole process, not just to do but to explain. How is it that we
(sentient beings in general) make connections and analogies? How
do we generalize? How do we test a generalization once made? (I
often resort to the "throw a few examples at it to see if they
pass" test, as if testing spaghetti for doneness by whether it
sticks to the wall. It works well for a first cut, at least.)

Computer programming is, at its heart, about abstraction --
controlling complexity by removing irrelevant detail, at the point
where it becomes irrelevant. I am not at all sure that tutorial-writing
is about abstraction. It seems different, somehow. Certainly
there are people who are quite good at one and terrible at the
other. But some of the elements are the same: programs can be
terribly complex, and often the only way to get them right is to
simplify them. This gives rise to program structures, including
data structures. Tutorials likewise need structure, so that details
appear only where they are relevant. But the structures themselves
are different, or at least, have quite different constraints.

Well, that seems quite a few words for saying "I don't know", but
I am prone to a certain prolixity. :) There is really only one
part that I am sure of: if you want to write, you must read, read,
read.
 
F

Floyd Davidson

Chris Torek said:
I must also note that there is an enormous difference between
a "collection of vignettes" and a "complete novel", as it were.

Granted a *lot* of work would be needed to mold it into a novel.
But darned, given your style of writing, I thought then (and
still do) that it would be just a grand novel. I have always
thought the same about Lawrence Kirby's style of writing too.
It isn't just the facts, it's the life that you give those facts
in your expression of the story you tell. And indeed, you *do*
write stories, not just a list of facts.

I also have an interest in the style in which traditional Native
stories are told. There is a striking similarity between how
you would describe the inner workings a compiler, which is an
object most of us cannot really "see" with our own eyes or touch
with our own fingers, and the way an Eskimo elder might explain
to children the complex structure of something like the umiaq
boats used for whaling here in Barrow, or perhaps something even
more abstract such as spiritual relationships between humans and
animals. (You can, for example, find a great number of these
stories written down, but it is very hard to find one that will
make you sit up at the end and say, "Wow, I *understand*!".

Usually the response is more like, "Okay, if they think so...")

When I was young I learned a great deal about parenting skills
from an "old" Yup'ik Eskimo man (I am now the age he was then,
so I no longer think he was so old), whose adult children used
to tell me they would sometimes get him talking in the evening
and they would try so hard to stay awake because it was so
interesting. But of course, eventually they'd fall asleep
anyway. One of his youngest daughters, who was about 19 or 20
at the time, told me every time she woke up after one of those
sessions, realizing that she had fallen asleep too soon and had
missed something, she'd swear next time she would stay awake
longer.


[interesting stuff snipped]
Computer programming is, at its heart, about abstraction --
controlling complexity by removing irrelevant detail, at the point
where it becomes irrelevant. I am not at all sure that tutorial-writing
is about abstraction. It seems different, somehow. Certainly
there are people who are quite good at one and terrible at the
other. But some of the elements are the same: programs can be
terribly complex, and often the only way to get them right is to
simplify them. This gives rise to program structures, including
data structures.

I wanted to leave the context above and below the following
sentence, and yet separate this one part out from the rest. To
me, the ability to accomplish this seems to be the key to most
writing for Usenet, but certainly for tutorials in particular.
Tutorials likewise need structure, so that details appear only
where they are relevant.

Of course there's a lot of devils in the details of how to
accomplish that.
But the structures themselves are different, or at least, have
quite different constraints.

Well, that seems quite a few words for saying "I don't know", but
I am prone to a certain prolixity. :) There is really only one
part that I am sure of: if you want to write, you must read, read,
read.

Thanks Chris, I enjoyed your comments and perspective.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top