In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: TheComplete Nonsense"

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by spinoza1111, Apr 3, 2010.

  1. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    The text is on wordpress at

    http://spinoza1111.wordpress.com/20...hildt-an-analysis-of-c-the-complete-nonsense/

    For your convenience in making comments, here is the same text in
    ASCII format.

    In the Matter of Herb Schildt: an Analysis of “C: the Complete
    Nonsense”

    Let’s now deconstruct Peter Seebach’s document “C: the Complete
    Nonsense”, an attack on Herb Schildt’s first edition of “C: the
    Complete Reference” which in becoming the sole source of subsequent
    claims that Schildt wrote “bad books”, which unfairly damaged his good
    name. Let’s examine it, line by line.

    Note that the Amazon link to Schildt is not to the first edition
    reviewed by Seebach. However, Seebach has failed to update “C: the
    Complete Nonsense” to reflect fixes to errata, which is itself
    indicative the malice which makes libel, actionable.

    “C: The Complete Reference is a popular programming book, marred only
    by the fact that it is largely tripe. Herbert Schildt has a knack for
    clear, readable text, describing a language subtly but quite
    definitely different from C.”

    In fact, there was more than one C at the time “C: the Complete
    Reference” and “C: the Complete Nonsense” were written and published
    (circa 1995), and there remain more than one despite the C99
    “standard”. This is because the standard was high jacked by vendors
    who did not want to change compilers, since this would mean rehiring
    expensive compiler developers. As a result, the standard left
    significant parts of C undefined.

    For example, because in the “old days” it was easiest for simple “one
    pass” compilers (compilers which read the source text once) to emit
    instructions to place the actual parameters of a subroutine call on
    the stack, you could not expect a(b=0, b) to work like you’d expect it
    to in a modern language. Other compilers were able to provide the
    expected left to right evaluation. They were supporting different
    languages neither with a solid claim to being the lingua franca except
    to that sort of amateur folk linguist who knows only his own language,
    and demonstrates for an “English only” society. Seebach seems to be
    this unpleasant type of person with regards to his favorite languages.

    Seebach wanted Schildt to describe the C that Seebach knew.

    In addition, Peter Seebach has a knack for unclarity, in his solecism
    “clear, readable text”. A careful writer would look up the meaning of
    clarity in the dictionary, and finding that it means contributing to
    understanding, would qualify “clarity” as “apparent”.

    “This page aims to give people a good way to find out what’s wrong
    with it.”

    …as opposed to letting readers figure that out, as if a book were a
    restaurant. This is what Theodore Adorno calls the “culinary”
    approach; an only apparently democratic but actually autocratic mode
    in which the prospective consumer is warned off a book as if the very
    possibility of critical reading has been erased; in a programming
    book, trying out code with typos and fixing it.

    Furthermore, the document is about the first edition only and has not
    been updated, which means that it is egregiously poor as any sort of
    guide to people who want to buy Schildt’s fourth edition; because the
    market “liked” Schildt, he’s gone to four editions.

    “Don’t bother contacting the publisher; they apparently don’t feel
    these errors are significant.”

    We have learned from Seebach himself on comp.lang.c and
    comp.lang.c.moderated that he contacted McGraw-Hill, and that McGraw
    Hill actually offered him a temporary tech review job but they failed
    to offer him enough money for his tastes. And as we shall see, the
    errors are not that significant.

    “The following is a partial list [1] of the errors I am aware of [2],
    sorted by page number. I am not including everything [3]; just many
    [4] of them.”

    [1] Contradicts “currently known” below. Like Seebach’s solecism in
    the use of “clear”, which means understandable and providing a clear
    view of the truth, his slop-English allows him to lie to himself and
    others. “Currently known” means in the absence of further
    qualification, “these are all the known errors”.

    [2] Implies that there are n errors and the list lists m<n. But what
    are they? We have no idea.

    [3] Why not?

    [4] When he says "I am missing several hundred errors", this could
    mean that Seebach wants people to join in a deliberate campaign to
    destroy Herbert Schildt's reputation (which is civilly liable, that
    is, libel) or that he somehow has determined that there are M~=~1000
    errors, but he presents N=20. But in this context, N is not "many".

    "I am missing several hundred errors [5]. Please write me if you think
    you know of any I'm missing. [6] Please also write if you believe one
    of these corrections is inadequate or wrong; I'd love to see it."

    [5] This is a very disturbing statement, as above. Did he lose them?
    Did he forget them? Or did he seek to form a cybernetic mob and gang
    up on Herb Schildt?

    [6] Very disturbing. Peter currently on comp.lang.c has a track record
    of posting awful code as if he’s seeking assistance. Here, he seems to
    be Open Sourcing, an Open Season, on Schildt’s reputation.

    "Currently known:"

    Followed by only 20 errors! So how many are there? Dozens? Hundreds?
    20? Nobody knows. But here goes…

    Page 19

    Schildt: “In general, negative numbers are represented using the two’s
    complement approach…”

    Seebach: “This is not a C feature. It is a common implementation, but
    it is specifically not required. (Binary is, but one’s complement is
    not unheard of.)”

    Negative numbers are not ALWAYS represented in twos complement
    notation: but this is what the head of department said in my graduate
    level class on computer architecture, that in general twos complement
    is used. This was so students could understand error dumps.

    Page 33

    Seebach: “The following heading occurs: static Global Variables: no
    such thing. A static variable outside of a function has file scope,
    which is distinct from global scope.”

    The important distinction in computer science is between variables
    which are static and have global scope, and variables which are
    allocated either at procedure startup or in blocks depending on the
    language, and have local scope.

    It is more important to learn this in general for all programming
    languages so that one can learn new languages. However, Seebach has
    boasted, in comp.lang.c, that he has not taken a single computer
    science class, at the undergraduate or graduate level. Herb Schildt
    has a Master’s in computer science.

    p. 53

    printf("%f", sizeof f);
    printf("%d", sizeof(int));

    Seebach: “Clearly wrong; sizeof is not a double or float. It is also
    not an int; it is an unsigned integral type, thus, one of unsigned
    char, unsigned short,unsigned int, or unsigned long.”

    “The only safe way to do this is: printf(“%lu”, (unsigned long)
    sizeof(int)); while this is larger, a clear explanation of why it is
    required will go a long way towards helping people understand C.”

    Although I do not know why Herb used %f and %d format codes, he did
    know, as Seebach seems not to, that all ints are floats and all floats
    are doubles in well-structured languages. Because at the time and
    even, to an extent, now, C was almost as diverse of the languages of
    China, Herb used the educated programmer’s maxim, which is to first
    code as if the compiler writers and language designers knew at least
    as much as the intelligent programmer, and fix problems later.

    p. 53

    “Seebach: The following code:

    /* Write 6 integers to a disk file. */
    void put_rec(int rec[6], FILE *fp)
    {
    int len;

    len = fwrite(rec, sizeof rec, 1, fp);
    if (len != 1) printf("write error");
    }

    is described as causing all of rec to be written, no matter what size
    of array is being used.”

    “Incorrect. As correctly noted elsewhere, when “int rec[6]” is an
    argument to a function, it actually specifies a pointer-to-int, not an
    array[6]-of-int. sizeof rec is sizeof(int *) here, and this code works
    only if sizeof(int *) is precisely 6 times sizeof(int). (Not
    impossible, but hardly likely.)”

    “Further, who said fp was a disk file? fp could be stdout. (An
    admitted nit.)”

    The put_rec code was errata. Peter has said on comp.lang.c that McGraw
    Hill offered him the chance to work collegially with Herb to fix
    errata; he refused, he has said, because they didn’t offer enough
    money. Because Schildt’s books were successful, he’s gone to several
    editions, and has fixed most of the errata.

    Page 59

    Schildt: “This shorthand works for all the binary operators.”

    Seebach: “No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t work for ‘.’, ‘->’, ‘&&’, or
    ‘||’. For that matter, it doesn’t work for the function call operator
    or the array operator, both of which are, roughly, binary operators.

    In college lectures which Seebach confesses he did not attend, “binary
    operators” often is a verbal shorthand for “the commonly known binary
    arithmetic operators, with logic operators being treated separately”.

    The problem here is that adolescents fantasize that there can be
    unambiguous language, whereas in what Jurgen Habermas, the German
    “critical theorist” calls “civil discourse”, a common and grown-up
    search for truth from which competition for gain is excluded, there
    occurs a constant search among all participants, not only for
    substantive consensus on a truth, but also for support for that common
    consensus in the form of a common language, whose micro-rules vary in
    a language game…what Wittgenstein said was a form of life, as well.

    Put more simply, for the same reason we can use a noun as a verb in
    “let me email you the email” and be understood perfectly, the human
    brain, as opposed to a computer, has an unparalleled ability to parse
    and reparse holistically and rapidly, while searching, not for the
    most advantageous parse to the owner of the brain, but for the best
    fit.

    Therefore, in a college classroom, a teacher like Herb, who has just
    introduced the arithmetical binary operators, and who plans to address
    logical and other binary operators later, is understood by normal, and
    attentive students.

    However, Peter Seebach has said on comp.lang.c that he is “attention
    disordered”. This would give him rights of charity save for the fact
    that he on that forum has called people he doesn’t like “morons” and
    “insane”, using a language which even Sarah Palin, of all people,
    correctly recognizes as discriminatory and abusive.

    Here, Peter, for personal advantage (in fact, I believe, to
    dishonestly establish himself to be a clever programmer despite his
    lack of academic background in computer science or any evidence of
    programming in code swatches he has posted this year on comp.lang.c)
    interrupts the flow of civil discourse in a virtual classroom and is
    the bane, in fact of computer instructors: the student with a chip on
    his shoulder who wants to show off his knowledge.

    Page 63

    Seebach: “If scanf fails, the variable guess is referenced before it
    has been initialized; accessing an uninitialized object introduces
    undefined behavior.”

    Errata. Seebach was invited to work collegially on the sort of errata
    which creeps into computer books when the publishers don’t allow the
    authors post-PDF control, and he refused. Most of these errors were
    fixed in subsequent editions.

    Page 131

    Schildt: “Memory allocated by C’s dynamic allocation functions is
    obtained from the heap — the region of free memory that lies between
    your program and its permanent storage area and the stack.”

    Seebach: “C does not specify that there is a stack – only that
    functions can call each other. The “heap” is a DOS term, and the
    layout is not a part of the C language. It is not atypical for the
    layout to be radically different, and certainly, there is no call for
    describing a specific choice as ‘what happens’.”

    Seebach lays an egg. Like a like a Maoist student during the Cultural
    Revolution, he leaps up to admonish the teacher not to talk about
    stacks as if it’s even possible to implement C’s runtime, or any
    language runtime, without stacks.

    He then surpasses this, and says “the ‘heap’ is a DOS term”. The
    “heap” is most definitely not a DOS term: Seebach is ignorant of OO
    languages which formalize a heap…and a stack. Here is where Seebach’s
    lack of education is most obvious.

    It is formally impossible, in fact, to implement a runtime with
    support for recursive procedures (supported by all C compilers and
    runtimes since day one) without a stack, that is, a LIFO data
    structure. It is painfully possible to go without a stack, and save
    and return general registers in work areas provided by the caller;
    this was done on the IBM 360 in BAL in my direct experience. But it
    does not work if a procedure calls itself directly or indirectly. Some
    sort of LIFO stack, implemented in an unspecified way, is needed.

    The only reason why the C99 standard document fails to use the word
    “stack” that I can imagine is a long-standing American prejudice
    against the stack, which surfaced both in the design of the IBM/360
    (whose designers knew about stacks, probably, but used general
    registers instead) and much later in the RISC kiddie’s hatred of
    stacks.

    Page 132

    Schildt: “After the assignment, p points to the first 1000 bytes of
    free memory.”

    Seebach: “No, p points to at least 1000 bytes of allocated space,
    which is not free memory. There is also no reason to assume it was the
    ‘first’ 1000 bytes; top-down allocation is not atypical, and further,
    there’s no reason to assume this code fragment runs in isolation.”

    Schildt like most good writers, tries to be conversational in
    presenting difficult material. “Free” was a minor solecism.

    But, far more perniciously, Seebach actually equates negative claims
    with positive claims and often prefers, whether writing about Schildt
    or C standards, the negative claim as being not only true, but also
    easier to defend because harder to disprove by men of good will.

    Seebach has blogged in public, circa 2000, his preference for George
    Bush. He, like most former Bush supporters, has disclaimed further
    support. Nonetheless, his support for Bush is interesting, because for
    Bush’s henchman Karl Rove (a college dropout who like Seebach
    considers himself a genius autodidact), it was only necessary to claim
    that Saddam Hussein, in 2003, had weapons of mass destruction, and let
    the (huge) antiwar movement try to “prove a negative”.

    Therefore here and elsewhere, Seebach would “teach” C in a faux-Zen
    way, beating students who conclude from the behavior of anyone
    compiler and runtime that “C” works “this” way. To him, their
    knowledge is Sophistry, but as an “expert” his is the larger
    Sophistry. This is his false belief that C has been “standardized” by
    negative truths to wit that various behaviors (order of evaluation of
    actual parameters, when pre and post increment operators are
    evaluated) when a language standard must actually be useful and
    therefore, deterministic.

    Schildt is like a competent high school geometry teacher who uses a
    specific triangle with a specific metric to demonstrate the
    Pythagorean theorem. Seebach, who isn’t paying attention and may be
    autistic, is interrupting the class to ask whether the nonzero width
    of the chalk marks should be accounted for.

    This would be an intelligent question…in an “advanced” class. But in
    computer science, there are no “advanced” classes in being a language
    lawyer, since (1) being a language lawyer doesn’t help much in problem
    solving for the most part and (2) Seebach is in a language where, even
    after standardization and in the standard itself, the “law” is
    “unspecified” in too many places.

    Page 162

    Seebach: “Functions are not of type void; functions are of various
    types, called collectively the function types. A function may have a
    return of type void, which means that its type is something like
    ‘function taking (…) and returning void’.”



    Mr. Snoid is lost in the void. Herb knows very well that to return
    “void” is to return nothing and not return anything. Syntactically, in
    a way the student needs to know, the type of a void function is
    “void”.

    Both Seebach and Schildt are using reifying language, treating our
    ideas about what electrons do in a computer as things. Peter would
    renarrate the void function as returning something named “void”, which
    does not exist, and Schildt’s language is better, since void functions
    are something of a special [syntactical] type, which is not returned.

    Page 163

    Schildt: “You may also declare main() as void if it does not return a
    value.”

    Seebach: “Specifically untrue. ANSI mandates two declarations for
    main, and says that main may have declarations compatible with those.
    Both return int.”

    C was not standardized at the time this book was written, it existed
    in several different dialects. In fact, I discovered (on behalf, as it
    happens, of John “A Beautiful Mind” Nash) that the Microsoft compiler,
    which many of Schildt’s readers were using, is nonstandard at least as
    regards the evaluation of compile-time constant expressions. While it
    has become a Shibboleth or Secret Handshake among non-Microsoft
    Illuminati that you must declare main as int, it’s actually better
    style to make it void unless you have an important message, such as
    “up yours!” to the OS.

    But this shibboleth has become an article of faith amongst the anti-
    Microsoft crowd who compensate for the meaninglessness of their lives
    and general incompetence by fantasizing that they are Special, and the
    OS gives a hoot.

    Page 197

    Seebach: “It is redundant to give a size of char in bytes as 1 as an
    “assumption” – it’s the definition, sizeof() gives the size in
    *chars*.”

    Shibboleth. And here, Peter Seebach is here critiquing writing as a
    technical editor when he gave evidence in the prologue above that he
    can’t write with charity, clarity (the clarity of truth), coherence or
    consistency.

    Page 247

    Seebach: “The stream fp is opened with mode “r”, the mode to open a
    text file. Then, fseek is called on fp, with the 2nd argument not a
    value returned by a previous call to ftell.”

    “ANSI 7.9.9.2: For a text stream, either offset shall be zero, or
    offset shall be a value returned by an earlier call to the ftell
    function on the same stream and whence shall be SEEK_SET.”

    “In other words, this is blatantly invalid.”

    Genuine errata of the sort to be expected under deadline pressure.
    Pompous and exhibitionist quotation from a standard doesn’t change
    this.

    Page 253

    Schildt: “In most implementations, the operation fails if the file
    specified in the open statement does not exist on the disk.”

    Seebach: “To the best of my knowledge, POSIX (the standard for the
    open() call) documents and requires the functionality of the O_CREAT
    flag.”

    But, the operation fails if the file does not exist on the disk.
    Seebach’s point is “I’m real smart”.

    Page 283

    Schildt’s code:

    #include string.h // corner chars deleted to format

    char s1[] = "hello ";
    char s2[] = "there.";

    void main(void)
    {
    int p;
    p = strcat(s1, s2);
    }

    Seebach: “It is correctly noted that this generates a warning. Not
    mentioned is that it’s invalid; although s1[] is a modifiable array,
    it is an array large enough to hold “hello ” (and the terminating null
    byte), so it has room for 7 bytes. The strcat overflows the array,
    producing undefined behavior.”

    “(And, of course, the declaration of main is invalid.)”

    Genuine errata. Seebach is not doing so good. Only 2/14 at this point.

    Page 284

    Seebach: “All of the header files are listed in capitals; the standard
    specifies them in lower case. It is not required that a C compiler
    reject all-caps, but nor is it required that it accept them.”

    “But nor is it required”? A completely illiterate grammatical
    solecism. How dare does Seebach pretend to be a tech editor? He was
    offered a job finding errors. He found a few.

    And furthermore, C should reject all-caps: it would do so if it were a
    truly consistent language. But it as a real language in practice it
    allows them because of Microsoft’s market power.

    Page 314

    Schildt: “However, since EOF is a valid integer value, you must use
    feof() to check for end-of-file when working with binary files.”

    Seebach: “Not merely a little bit untrue, but utterly wrong, and
    specifically missing the point of the rule (correctly stated) about
    returning the char as ‘unsigned char converted to int’ (actually
    stated in the standard in 7.9.7.1, under fgetc()).”

    “Since EOF is a negative integral constant, it can never compare equal
    to any unsigned char. When you are reading from a binary file, the
    values you get willnever compare equal to EOF, until getchar() returns
    EOF because the file is empty.”

    “This correlates with a mistake made in all of the examples where
    loops break on ‘$’, ‘A’, or ‘ ‘ because the return from getchar() is
    immediately put into a char variable.”
    “This is a more serious flaw than many, because it results in poorly
    written, inefficient code.”

    “(Couple this with the consistent attempts to use feof() to see if the
    next read will fail, when in fact feof() only returns true when the
    previous read failed, and you get a completely wrong description of
    the standard I/O library.)”

    “Also, several of the programs given loop forever if an end of file is
    reached, because EOF is not checked for in a loop.”

    “(The astute reader will note that he is correct for implementations
    in which char and int are the same size; I disregard this because:
    This violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the standard. The
    implementation he is discussing does not have this problem.”

    “In such an environment, the “correct” thing to do is probably to use
    fread and check for failure. feof() will still not warn you that your
    next read will fail.)”

    Probably Herb’s most serious error, but of the sort which creeps into
    most computer books, including Seebach’s Apress title as he admits.
    Software books disclaim warranty protection for the consumer in the
    same way software warranties make this disclaimer.

    Page 333

    Seebach: “After

    char str[80];

    sprintf(str,"%s %d %c", "one", 2, 3);

    it is asserted that str will contain ‘one 2 3’. This is incorrect; it
    would contain “one 2 ^C”. (That’s ‘control C’ in ASCII, or a character
    with the value 3)”

    Errata. And grandstanding.

    Page 348

    Schildt: “This program checks each character read from stdin and
    reports all uppercase letters:”.

    Seebach: “He is wrong.”

    #include ctype.h // corner chars deleted to format
    #include stdio.h

    void main(void)
    {
    char ch;

    for (;;) {
    ch = getchar();
    if(ch == ' ') break;
    if(isupper(ch)) printf("%c is uppercase\n", ch);
    }
    }

    “The code works only if there are no uppercase letters following the
    first space in the standard input stream; further, a file consisting
    only of the word ‘hello’ will prevent this horribly broken code from
    terminating – because it doesn’t check for EOF, only for a space.”

    “Once again, even a slight clue about EOF would help a lot here.”

    Errata. Most of Seebach’s points about EOF handling are valid, but
    what’s broken is the way C, whether “standardized” or not, handles
    EOF.

    Constant is the tendency to make an inferential leap from error to
    ignorance, and from special to general ignorance. It is adolescent.

    Page 434

    Schildt: “free() must only be called with a pointer that was
    previously allocated with one of the dynamic allocation system’s
    functions (either malloc(), realloc(), or calloc()).”

    Seebach: “Also specifically untrue. ANSI states that free(NULL) is
    valid and has no effect. (Also note that it must be called with a
    pointer to space previously allocated, not with a pointer previously
    allocated, and that the pointer must not have been already freed or
    passed to realloc().)”

    There is no sensible use for free(NULL) save in code generation with
    the preprocessor or other tool: this fact is obscure and shouldn’t be
    presented at this point. The latter part of Seebach’s comment is again
    a Maoist attempt to prove that he’s smarter than the teacher. Herb is
    giving advice that is practical and true which if followed, works.

    Page 735

    Seebach: “This is spectacularly wrong; the ‘corrected’ “

    x = *p * (*p++);

    “is EXACTLY equivalent in terms of C; as correctly noted earlier, the
    order of evaluation IS NOT SPECIFIED.”

    “The code is still invalid (p is used to determine *p on the left of
    the *, as well as modified on the right), and the parentheses aren’t
    affecting the code at all.”

    “In this code, p can be incremented anywhere in the line; the only
    requirement would be that the value of (*p++) be the same as the value
    of (*p) before the increment. It is not specified whether the other *p
    happens before or after the increment.”

    “In fact, because the code modifies an object (p) and uses the value
    of the object to do something other than determine the new value (The
    first “*p”), it is invalid. Completely; a compiler is allowed to
    reject the code, and many will produce surprising results from this
    operation.”

    “This is not merely wrong, it’s wrong while discussing the problem,
    which is doubly bad.”

    The order of evaluation is indeed specified in the variant behavior of
    C compilers, whose writers, as mere programmers, were given no
    guidance by the standard.

    This was because C standardization occured after the “Reagan
    Revolution” empowered private companies and computer thugs to use the
    public good for private gain. In the C99 standard, Job One seems to
    have been not making vendors rehire compiler developers so that their
    stock price was maintained. The standard is useless to mere
    programmers, who are considered serfs today.

    At this point in “C: the Complete Nonsense”, Peter Seebach has
    identified only 5 errata, of the sort that exist in all books unless
    the publisher allows the authors to use a system to avoid errata. And
    yet he writes at the end:

    “There are dozens of others, and I’m sure there’s an effective
    drinking game lurking in this book.”

    In other words, Seebach Open Sources here an Open Season on Schildt
    based on his malice. This is civilly actionable libel.

    Seebach needs to remove this document, which is “hit” by Google higher
    than Schildt’s book’s fourth edition, which dishonestly misdescribes
    the current edition, and which is the source, as far as I can
    determine, of all subsequent attacks on Schildt’s output. He needs to
    replace it by an apology to Herb.

    Seebach appears to me stuck at the level of the vicious adolescent. In
    “You Are Not A Gadget”, Jaron Lanier (a musician, computer scientist,
    and philosopher) writes that what he calls “drive-by anonymity”, the
    marshalling of an assault on a Chosen target by anonymous posters can
    indeed scale up, from the personal anguish caused Herb and his family
    when his name was transformed, based exclusively on “C: the Complete
    Nonsense” to “Bullschildt”, to the death threats received by Java
    author Kathy Sierra, to the “tea party” attacks on Obama…and beyond.

    But, you may say, Seebach is not anonymous. Lanier, in fact, misses
    the social structure of enabling. In the case of Sierra, named, non-
    anonymous bloggers at the defunct site www.meankids.org started in on
    Sierra. This enabled anonymous bloggers in the same way anonymous
    commenters say the most broad and overgeneralized things about all of
    Schildt’s books, based on “C: the Complete Nonsense” and documents
    which cite CTCN directly or indirectly, the “paper trail” seeming to
    ignorant people a vast amount of real evidence.

    Hitler was not anonymous; but his followers were, in many cases. And
    Mike Godwin is wrong; the probability of comparision to Hitler in
    online discussions “converges to unity” not because people are being
    shrill and foolish, but because Hitler is our inner troll, as Lanier
    calls it. He’s the face in the crowd in Munich in August 1914 baying
    for war who yearns to be on the podium, and non-anonymous.

    Actually I should have been able to deduce Fascism from the memory of
    my childhood. It sent its emissaries there in advance, like a
    conqueror into the most distant province, long before it arrived: my
    school comrades. If the bourgeois class harbored since time immemorial
    the dream of the wild popular community, the oppression of all by all,
    then children with first names like Horst and Jürgen and last names
    like Bergenroth, Bojunga and Eckhardt, theatrically staged the dream,
    before the adults were historically ripe enough to realize it. I felt
    the violence of the image of horror they were striving for so clearly,
    that all happiness afterwards seemed to be revocable and borrowed. The
    outbreak of the Third Reich did indeed surprise my political judgment,
    yet not my fearful premonitions. So closely had all the motifs of the
    permanent catastrophe brushed against me, so inextinguishably were the
    warning signs of the German awakening burned into me, that I
    recognized each one all over again in the features of the Hitler
    dictatorship: and often it appeared to my foolish horror, as if the
    total state had been invented solely against me, in order to inflict
    on me what I had been hitherto spared in my childhood, that state’s
    prehistory. The five patriots who attacked a single schoolmate, beat
    him up and, when he complained to the teacher, defamed him as a
    classroom snitch – aren’t they the same ones, who tortured prisoners,
    in order to prove the foreigners wrong, who said that torture was
    occurring? Whose hullaboo knew no end, when the smartest student made
    a mistake – didn’t they surround the Jewish camp prisoner, grinning
    and embarrassed, making fun of him, after he all too clumsily sought
    to hang himself? Who couldn’t write a single decent sentence, but
    found every one of mine too long – didn’t they abolish German
    literature and replace it through their scribing [Schrifttum]? Many
    covered their chests with mysterious insignia and wanted to become
    naval officers in a landlocked country: they declared themselves
    leaders of storm troopers and detachments, the legitimizers of
    illegitimation. The involuted intelligent ones, who had as little
    success in class as the gifted tinkerer without connections under
    liberalism; who for that reason curried favor with their parents with
    woodsaw work, or indeed drew for their own pleasure on drawing-boards
    with colored inks during long afternoon days, helped the Third Reich
    to its cruel efficiency and are being betrayed once again. Those
    however who always defiantly stirred up trouble against the teacher
    and, as one called it, disturbed the lesson, the day – indeed, the
    hour – they graduated from high school, they sat down with the same
    teachers at the same table with the same beer, as a confederation of
    men, who were born followers, rebels, whose impatient blows of the
    fist on the table already drummed the worship of the masters. They
    need only stay put, to catch up with those who were promoted to the
    next class, and revenge themselves on them. Since they, officials and
    candidates for death sentences, have stepped visibly out of my dreams
    and have expropriated my past life and my language, I don’t need to
    dream of them any longer. In Fascism, the nightmare of childhood has
    realized itself.

    Theodore Wiesengrund Adorno, Minima Moralia, 1948
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. spinoza1111

    Ian Bush Guest

    On 3 Apr, 19:25, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > This is what Theodore Adorno calls the “culinary”
    > approach;


    This is the point that my laughing became out loud. I consider myself
    a tolerant person, did I loose it before or after other sane people in
    the group?

    Ian
     
    Ian Bush, Apr 3, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    Re: In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: The Complete Nonsense"

    On 2010-04-03, Ian Bush <> wrote:
    > On 3 Apr, 19:25, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >> This is what Theodore Adorno calls the ?culinary?
    >> approach;


    > This is the point that my laughing became out loud. I consider myself
    > a tolerant person, did I loose it before or after other sane people in
    > the group?


    I didn't actually read it. Is it funny? I could totally go back and
    read it, if it's actually funny.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 3, 2010
    #3
  4. On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:34:07 -0400, Seebs <> wrote:

    > On 2010-04-03, Ian Bush <> wrote:
    >> On 3 Apr, 19:25, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >>> This is what Theodore Adorno calls the ?culinary?
    >>> approach;

    >
    >> This is the point that my laughing became out loud. I consider myself
    >> a tolerant person, did I loose it before or after other sane people in
    >> the group?

    >
    > I didn't actually read it. Is it funny? I could totally go back and
    > read it, if it's actually funny.


    It's not funny enough to bother reading the whole thing, but here's one
    howler:

    [regarding the use of %f and %d printf format specifiers for sizeof]
    > Although I do not know why Herb used %f and %d format codes, he did
    > know, as Seebach seems not to, that all ints are floats and all floats
    > are doubles in well-structured languages. Because at the time and
    > even, to an extent, now, C was almost as divers of the languages of
    > China, Herb used the educated programmer's maxim, which is to first
    > code as if the compiler writers and language designers knew at least
    > as much as the intelligent programmer, and fix problems later.


    I have absolutely no idea what spinoza thinks he's saying here, especially
    the part about "all ints are floats and all floats are doubles".

    spinoza then, at the end, goes into one of his typical babbling rants
    about "I am not a gadget", Hitler, Fascism, etc.

    He does make one point which may be valid, if true: according to spinoza,
    Schildt's book is in its 4th edition, with some errata fixed, and "C:
    The Complete Nonsense" refers to the first edition.
    A little research shows that Schildt's website refers to "C: The Complete
    Reference" as having been "fully updated for the C99 standard". Schildt's
    "Errata" page, however, links to errata for C++, C#, and Java books, but
    contains no errata for any editions of any of his C books.
    --
    Morris Keesan --
     
    Morris Keesan, Apr 3, 2010
    #4
  5. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    Re: In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: The Complete Nonsense"

    On 2010-04-03, Morris Keesan <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:34:07 -0400, Seebs <> wrote:
    >> I didn't actually read it. Is it funny? I could totally go back and
    >> read it, if it's actually funny.


    > It's not funny enough to bother reading the whole thing, but here's one
    > howler:


    > [regarding the use of %f and %d printf format specifiers for sizeof]
    >> Although I do not know why Herb used %f and %d format codes, he did
    >> know, as Seebach seems not to, that all ints are floats and all floats
    >> are doubles in well-structured languages. Because at the time and
    >> even, to an extent, now, C was almost as divers of the languages of
    >> China, Herb used the educated programmer's maxim, which is to first
    >> code as if the compiler writers and language designers knew at least
    >> as much as the intelligent programmer, and fix problems later.


    > I have absolutely no idea what spinoza thinks he's saying here, especially
    > the part about "all ints are floats and all floats are doubles".


    There certainly exist languages in which you can use numeric types and
    expect automatic conversions.

    The problem is that (and no one, I think, disputes that this design choice
    causes some problems), in C, when you're passing stuff to the variadic part
    of a variadic function, you don't know what types of objects you get except
    insofar as the earlier arguments told you. Thus, passing "%f" and passing
    an integer doesn't necessarily cause the integer to get converted to float;
    what it does is "undefined behavior", of which the two most common forms
    are:

    1. You get random stack garbage because floats and integers are passed
    differently.
    2. You get a float-sized chunk of space which contained part of an integer,
    or an integer, or an integer plus some other stuff, depending on their
    respective sizes.

    Either way, it's garbage.

    My guess would be that the actual motivation was "there is a float object,
    I'm typing quickly, I'll write %f". Because I've made that mistake; the
    difference is that I recognize that it's a mistake and fix it.

    Note that "in well-structured languages" is totally irrelevant; according
    to Nilges, C is not a well-designed language, and a book purporting to be
    about C which then relies on conventions or policies that only exist in other
    languages is, as I said: Complete. Nonsense.

    I'm glad to see that Nilges is continuing to support my theory that only
    sheer madness can make C:TCR 3rd Edition look remotely coherent.

    > spinoza then, at the end, goes into one of his typical babbling rants
    > about "I am not a gadget", Hitler, Fascism, etc.


    > He does make one point which may be valid, if true: according to spinoza,
    > Schildt's book is in its 4th edition, with some errata fixed, and "C:
    > The Complete Nonsense" refers to the first edition.


    No, he's not right. C:TCN is based on the THIRD edition, with I believe
    one or two references back to things that have been fixed since the second.

    e.g., the famous sizeof() example, in the 2nd edition, used <> instead of
    !=. This was fixed in the 3rd edition (and the 4th edition "fixes" the
    exercise making it factually correct but completely uninformative. D'oh!)

    > A little research shows that Schildt's website refers to "C: The Complete
    > Reference" as having been "fully updated for the C99 standard". Schildt's
    > "Errata" page, however, links to errata for C++, C#, and Java books, but
    > contains no errata for any editions of any of his C books.


    I don't really care about errata for the 3rd edition at this point; the 4th
    edition is somewhat improved, but still does crazy Pascal-style EOF handling
    and in some cases appears to pass EOF to putchar() type functions due to
    doing things in the wrong order. (Or possibly the flow is convoluted enough
    that it sometimes doesn't. The flow is sufficiently confusing when you try
    to use feof() as a loop control as to make it a bit tricky to be sure without
    spending more time on it than I've wanted to.)

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 3, 2010
    #5
  6. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 6:39 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > [I've snipped a few hundred lines of the usualspinoza1111nonsense.]
    >
    > spinoza1111wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > In the Matter of Herb Schildt: an Analysis of “C: the Complete
    > > Nonsense”

    >
    > > Let’s now deconstruct Peter Seebach’s document “C: the Complete
    > > Nonsense”,

    >
    > Your first error is...
    >
    > > an attack on Herb Schildt’s first edition of “C: the
    > > Complete Reference” which in becoming the sole source of subsequent
    > > claims that Schildt wrote “bad books”, which unfairly damaged his good
    > > name.

    >
    > ...here. It is not the sole source of subsequent claims that Schildt
    > wrote bad books. Other sources include, for example, subsequent editions
    > of "C: The Complete Reference".


    This is ridiculous. Perhaps in your country a man can be a witness
    against himself? I am really glad you're some sort of temporary
    programmer and not in politics, because you'd be a BNP nutcase.

    > As for the page being a response to the
    > first edition, ISTR that it is actually based on the third edition
    > (perhaps Seebs would clarify this point?).


    I don't think he will, for part of reputation destruction is creating
    confusion. For example, Peter and others like to retail stories about
    weird coworkers and form hypotheses about what I might do in order to
    pad their case, as Peter, it appears, has padded his resume.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > For example, because in the “old days” it was easiest for simple “one
    > > pass” compilers (compilers which read the source text once) to emit
    > > instructions to place the actual parameters of a subroutine call on
    > > the stack, you could not expect a(b=0, b) to work like you’d expect it
    > > to in a modern language. Other compilers were able to provide the
    > > expected left to right evaluation.

    >
    > Actually, C compilers almost invariably evaluate function parameters
    > right to left (although there is no requirement on them to do this). You
    > have been told this before.


    ....and sensible, well-educated programmers are surprised, because
    elsewhere in C the comma is a useful operator for left to right
    sequencing. The order of actual parameter evaluation is bizarre and
    legacy.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > Although I do not know why Herb used %f and %d format codes, he did
    > > know, as Seebach seems not to, that all ints are floats and all floats
    > > are doubles in well-structured languages.

    >
    > No int is a float, and no float is a double.


    ....in C, in which sense is deliberately absent so that stupid people
    like you can self-appear as experts.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > > The put_rec code was errata.

    >
    > If by this you mean that it is contained in a published errata list,
    > please cite the relevant reference to an errata addendum in the book or
    > a Schildt-sanctioned errata Web page for the book. If you simply mean
    > Schildt was wrong, well, yes, he was.
    >
    > > Page 63

    >
    > > Seebach: “If scanf fails, the variable guess is referenced before it
    > > has been initialized; accessing an uninitialized object introduces
    > > undefined behavior.”

    >
    > > Errata. Seebach was invited to work collegially on the sort of errata
    > > which creeps into computer books when the publishers don’t allow the
    > > authors post-PDF control, and he refused. Most of these errors were
    > > fixed in subsequent editions.

    >
    > Please cite the page numbers in those subsequent editions in which these
    > errors were fixed.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > > Page 162

    >
    > > Seebach: “Functions are not of type void; functions are of various
    > > types, called collectively the function types. A function may have a
    > > return of type void, which means that its type is something like
    > > ‘function taking (…) and returning void’.”

    >
    > > Mr. Snoid is lost in the void. Herb knows very well that to return
    > > “void” is to return nothing and not return anything. Syntactically, in
    > > a way the student needs to know, the type of a void function is
    > > “void”.

    >
    > No, a function that returns void has a type that includes "function
    > returning void" (but that isn't the whole story, since the type also
    > includes the parameter information).


    Please don't play with words. You're not qualified and you'll cut
    yourself.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > Page 163

    >
    > > Schildt: “You may also declare main() as void if it does not return a
    > > value.”

    >
    > > Seebach: “Specifically untrue. ANSI mandates two declarations for
    > > main, and says that main may have declarations compatible with those.
    > > Both return int.”

    >
    > > C was not standardized at the time this book was written, it existed
    > > in several different dialects.

    >
    > The first edition was published in 1987, when the standardisation effort
    > was well under way. Note that it was the ANSI C Standard that formally
    > introduced the type "void" into the language.


    ....however, a major part of McGraw Hill's target demographic was not
    using a standard compiler, and nobody was by definition before 1989.
    John Nash wasn't using a "standard" compiler in 1992, although after I
    switched him to the Borland compiler, his compiler was "more"
    standard.

    Therefore, it would have been absurd to publish on "standard C"
    especially because it was so obvious that the standards effort was
    comprised of vendor thugs and incompetent programmers who'd bought a
    membership.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    > Sig line vacant - apply within
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 4, 2010
    #6
  7. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    Re: In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: The Complete Nonsense"

    On 2010-04-04, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > On Apr 4, 6:39?am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >> As for the page being a response to the
    >> first edition, ISTR that it is actually based on the third edition
    >> (perhaps Seebs would clarify this point?).


    > I don't think he will, for part of reputation destruction is creating
    > confusion.


    Which is funny, because I already posted a clear answer to that question
    some hours ago. It is indeed based on the third edition. The second
    had more errors, and I have never seen the first, but I've been told it
    was even worse.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 4, 2010
    #7
  8. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 6:15 am, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-04-03, Morris Keesan <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:34:07 -0400, Seebs <> wrote:
    > >> I didn't actually read it.  Is it funny?  I could totally go back and
    > >> read it, if it's actually funny.

    > > It's not funny enough to bother reading the whole thing, but here's one
    > > howler:
    > > [regarding the use of %f and %d printf format specifiers for sizeof]
    > >> Although I do not know why Herb used %f and %d format codes, he did
    > >> know, as Seebach seems not to, that all ints are floats and all floats
    > >> are doubles in well-structured languages. Because at the time and
    > >> even, to an extent, now, C was almost as divers of the languages of
    > >> China, Herb used the educated programmer's maxim, which is to first
    > >> code as if the compiler writers and language designers knew at least
    > >> as much as the intelligent programmer, and fix problems later.

    > > I have absolutely no idea what spinoza thinks he's saying here, especially
    > > the part about "all ints are floats and all floats are doubles".


    You wouldn't, because you don't know "programming languages"
    independent of a set of facts about a specific programming language.
    It's as if I'd decided to program all computers as if they were IBM
    1401s, and apart from liking Rexx (which is based in part on the
    legacy and internal IBM belief that all computers should support
    decimal arithmetic with unlimited precision), I didn't.

    If you like to learn from books, please read "Programming Language
    Pragmatics" by Michael L. Scott (Morgan Kauffman). You need to learn
    theoretic constructs such as the fact that in sensible programming
    languages, numbers form a nested set down from double to short or
    byte. You also need to learn that competent programmers try to write
    sensible code based on these constructs, adapting their language to
    their model rather than celebrating its mistakes.

    >
    > There certainly exist languages in which you can use numeric types and
    > expect automatic conversions.
    >

    Correct.

    > The problem is that (and no one, I think, disputes that this design choice


    Correct.

    > causes some problems), in C, when you're passing stuff to the variadic part
    > of a variadic function, you don't know what types of objects you get except
    > insofar as the earlier arguments told you.  Thus, passing "%f" and passing
    > an integer doesn't necessarily cause the integer to get converted to float;
    > what it does is "undefined behavior", of which the two most common forms
    > are:
    >
    > 1.  You get random stack garbage because floats and integers are passed
    > differently.
    > 2.  You get a float-sized chunk of space which contained part of an integer,
    > or an integer, or an integer plus some other stuff, depending on their
    > respective sizes.
    >
    > Either way, it's garbage.


    Point taken. 6 errata out of 20 points but note that the maximum
    number of errata will still be only 20, and you haven't addressed the
    contradictory language at the beginning of the post.

    >
    > My guess would be that the actual motivation was "there is a float object,
    > I'm typing quickly, I'll write %f".  Because I've made that mistake; the
    > difference is that I recognize that it's a mistake and fix it.


    But our experience is that you DON'T fix or see trivial errors such as
    off by one. However, it seems that here, and at most 20 other place
    (and, probably more like 6), Herb ran out of time to test code which
    was in the process of being transformed into a hard-to-change PDF.
    This is common in software publishing, and it's why computer books
    disclaim warranty.


    >
    > Note that "in well-structured languages" is totally irrelevant; according
    > to Nilges, C is not a well-designed language, and a book purporting to be
    > about C which then relies on conventions or policies that only exist in other
    > languages is, as I said:  Complete.  Nonsense.


    No, using a poorly structured language makes the search for good
    structure even more important. This is why I developed "virtually
    structured programming" for assembler and Fortran, and it is a point
    made long ago by Brian Kernighan in The Elements of Programming Style.

    My suspicion of any programmer who uses the mistakes of a language to
    use his own poor practice is covering up his incompetence, and this
    has been confirmed, for me, by your code here.


    >
    > I'm glad to see that Nilges is continuing to support my theory that only
    > sheer madness can make C:TCR 3rd Edition look remotely coherent.


    Petitio principii:

    1. Nilges is mad

    2. Therefore anything he says is wrong (a questionable assumption on
    two bases: on the monkey/typewriter model, approximately 50% of what I
    say is true, and on a Romantic basis, I might have special insight)

    3. He thinks C:TCR is coherent

    4. Therefore he's mad

    Dweebach, CTCR is not at issue here: CTCN has to stand on its own
    merits. It may be incoherent. I noticed long ago that many computer
    books are semi-coherent, and I learned why: computer book publishing
    is a business, not "truth".

    But CTCN fails to make your case. It's self-contradictory, misuses
    words such as "clarity", and is completely disorganized. To make your
    case, you would have had to list the "hundreds" or "dozens" of errors
    you refer to in CTCN. It is illogical to reason from 20 to 24 or 100.


    >
    > > spinoza then, at the end, goes into one of his typical babbling rants
    > > about "I am not a gadget", Hitler, Fascism, etc.
    > > He does make one point which may be valid, if true: according to spinoza,
    > > Schildt's book is in its 4th edition, with some errata fixed, and "C:
    > > The Complete Nonsense" refers to the first edition.

    >
    > No, he's not right.  C:TCN is based on the THIRD edition, with I believe
    > one or two references back to things that have been fixed since the second.


    The book is in its fourth edition. Therefore, you are dishonest,
    because you're telling people about the flaws, with page numbers, in
    an edition that is out of print. Dishonest enough to believe that in
    the above, you may be lying, and that CTCN is based on the first
    edition. This is verifiable by checking page numbers.

    It in fact appears that you posted a response to the first edition,
    and failed to keep it up to date. You may have changed it (recently,
    perhaps, in response to this thread) but you're still basically
    dishonest. You were asked, and offered money, to be a tech editor and
    have a real shot at accomplishing something (which my son accomplished
    wrt to Stroustrup's book on C++ at the age of 13) but you refused.

    This is because you are grandiose. You couldn't take trigonometry and
    had to take calculus, and you wouldn't take computer science. There's
    a disturbing pattern.


    >
    > e.g., the famous sizeof() example, in the 2nd edition, used <> instead of
    > !=.  This was fixed in the 3rd edition (and the 4th edition "fixes" the
    > exercise making it factually correct but completely uninformative.  D'oh!)
    >
    > > A little research shows that Schildt's website refers to "C: The Complete
    > > Reference" as having been "fully updated for the C99 standard".  Schildt's
    > > "Errata" page, however, links to errata for C++, C#, and Java books, but
    > > contains no errata for any editions of any of his C books.

    >
    > I don't really care about errata for the 3rd edition at this point; the 4th
    > edition is somewhat improved, but still does crazy Pascal-style EOF handling
    > and in some cases appears to pass EOF to putchar() type functions due to
    > doing things in the wrong order.  (Or possibly the flow is convoluted enough
    > that it sometimes doesn't.  The flow is sufficiently confusing when you try
    > to use feof() as a loop control as to make it a bit tricky to be sure without
    > spending more time on it than I've wanted to.)


    For each edition, you needed to inventory every error. Then, you
    needed to form some sort of explanatory theory. Mine is that Microsoft
    C is different and nonstandard, because C, if standardized would be a
    new language.

    You'd be laughed at since most computer books have under disclaimer of
    warranty any number of errors, and you have said that your OWN book
    will have errors. This is why you prefer the McCarthyite (and Fascist)
    conspiracy theory that Schildt's books contain "hundreds" of errors
    and their was a plot.

    But you preferred a drive-by.

    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 4, 2010
    #8
  9. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 4:32 am, Ian Bush <>
    wrote:
    > On 3 Apr, 19:25, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >
    > > This is what Theodore Adorno calls the “culinary”
    > > approach;

    >
    > This is the point that my laughing became out loud. I consider myself
    > a tolerant person, did I loose it before or after other sane people in


    Your illiteracy is causing me to "loose" it. The fact is that Adorno
    saw things which I saw emerge in computing, including subhumanity, and
    the "culinary" belief that the consumer (or hive mind) has any
    artistic, or here scientific, wisdom.

    > the group?
    >
    > Ian
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 4, 2010
    #9
  10. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    Re: In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: The Complete Nonsense"

    On 2010-04-04, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111 wrote:
    >> For example, Peter and others like to retail stories about
    >> weird coworkers and form hypotheses about what I might do in order to
    >> pad their case, as Peter, it appears, has padded his resume.


    > I doubt that very much. Almost certainly he has to trim his CV
    > mercilessly to keep it down to a reasonable length. I know I do. There
    > is simply no room for padding.


    Actually, for once, Nilges is entirely correct (though almost certainly
    by coincidence).

    I have maintained for some time a padded resume.

    http://www.seebs.net/res-p.html

    As the parent page says:

    I was once told you can't get hired if you don't have a padded
    resume. Here's mine.

    Example listings:

    Apple Computer
    Product Tester (1988-present)
    * Tested products after shipment.
    * Funded company.

    As you might expect, literally true...

    > Nilges was invited to provide evidence to support his wildly spurious
    > claim, but he refused.


    Actually, it is the case that several of the errors cited were indeed
    corrected in the 4th edition. I don't have any reason to believe that
    Nilges has a copy of the 4th edition on which to base his claim, but
    he happens to be right.

    > typename functionname(parameterlist) means that functionname is a
    > function that has the type "function taking parameterlist and returning
    > typename". It does not mean that functionname has the type typename. To
    > say that it does mean that is, at best, a spurious and ill-considered
    > shortcut and, at worst, ghastlily wrong.


    Ayup.

    >> Therefore, it would have been absurd to publish on "standard C"


    > On the contrary, it would have been absurd not to.


    We can resolve this easily.

    From the front cover of C:TCR 3rd Edition:
    The One "Must Have"
    Book on C --
    A Comprehensive
    Desktop Reference
    Covers ANSI C

    The spine says, in big letters (about the same size as the text "the
    complete reference", but written in white-on-red to make it more
    visible) "covers ANSI C". The back cover likewise asserts that the
    book "Covers ANSI C".

    The copyright date is 1995. According to the Preface:
    When the second edition [of this book] was prepared, the ANSI C
    standard had just been adopted. Today, standard C code is
    simply a given. (And, with standardization the promise of truly
    portable C code was finally fulfilled.)

    The book claims repeatedly to cover, and focus on, ANSI C.

    Whether it should or not, or whether it lives up to those claims, are
    separate questions. However, as usual, Nilges is utterly and delusionally
    wrong -- he has mistaken his own prejudices for those of his idol. In
    fact, the C standard had been in widespread use for nearly six years
    when the third edition was written.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 4, 2010
    #10
  11. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-04-04, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >
    > >spinoza1111wrote:
    > >> For example, Peter and others like  to retail stories about
    > >> weird coworkers and form hypotheses about what I might do in order to
    > >> pad their case, as Peter, it appears, has padded his resume.

    > > I doubt that very much. Almost certainly he has to trim his CV
    > > mercilessly to keep it down to a reasonable length. I know I do. There
    > > is simply no room for padding.

    >
    > Actually, for once, Nilges is entirely correct (though almost certainly
    > by coincidence).
    >
    > I have maintained for some time a padded resume.
    >
    > http://www.seebs.net/res-p.html
    >
    > As the parent page says:
    >
    >         I was once told you can't get hired if you don't have a padded
    >         resume. Here's mine.
    >
    > Example listings:
    >
    >         Apple Computer
    >         Product Tester (1988-present)
    >         * Tested products after shipment.
    >         * Funded company.
    >
    > As you might expect, literally true...


    This is quite a level of dishonesty. You might think you're fucking
    around, and were your resume only to damage corporations, I wouldn't
    necessarily have a problem with it.

    However, people who padded their resumes at Bell-Northern Research
    when I was there from 1981 to 1986 had of necessity to backstab
    coworkers, such as a highly skilled programmer-manager whose reports
    ganged up on her because she not only expected them to be on time, but
    to submit structured code (which would not include switch statements
    with fallthrough).

    Listen, at 40, you need to grow up. You're damaging people and abusing
    clc and clcm to pad your resume, and this harms people who are all I
    care about. This situation is escalating; I have contacted Apress and
    will take further steps as needed. You can END IT at any time by
    removing "C: the Complete Nonsense" and replacing it with an apology.
    >
    > > Nilges was invited to provide evidence to support his wildly spurious
    > > claim, but he refused.

    >
    > Actually, it is the case that several of the errors cited were indeed
    > corrected in the 4th edition.  I don't have any reason to believe that
    > Nilges has a copy of the 4th edition on which to base his claim, but
    > he happens to be right.


    Which is all the more reason for you to remove the web page. You need
    to redo it for the fourth edition, and this time, we need to see all
    of what you claim to be errors. If as you say the page was intended to
    be a service to prospective buyers, they need you to do your homework
    this time.

    Furthermore, your new Web page must be a wiki or blog with open
    comments because you simply do not know how to separate your opinions
    from facts.

    I understand that this is a lot of work. Alternatively, simply post an
    apology at the original page site. If the site is pulled and an
    apology is posted, I will no longer discuss this issue.

    >
    > > typename functionname(parameterlist) means that functionname is a
    > > function that has the type "function taking parameterlist and returning
    > > typename". It does not mean that functionname has the type typename. To
    > > say that it does mean that is, at best, a spurious and ill-considered
    > > shortcut and, at worst, ghastlily wrong.

    >
    > Ayup.


    Wow, someone who can make an adverb out of ghastly telling Schildt how
    to write. Ghastly.
    >
    > >> Therefore, it would have been absurd to publish on "standard C"

    > > On the contrary, it would have been absurd not to.

    >
    > We can resolve this easily.
    >
    > From the front cover of C:TCR 3rd Edition:
    >         The One "Must Have"
    >         Book on C --
    >         A Comprehensive
    >         Desktop Reference
    >         Covers ANSI C
    >
    > The spine says, in big letters (about the same size as the text "the
    > complete reference", but written in white-on-red to make it more
    > visible) "covers ANSI C".  The back cover likewise asserts that the
    > book "Covers ANSI C".
    >
    > The copyright date is 1995.  According to the Preface:
    >         When the second edition [of this book] was prepared, the ANSI C
    >         standard had just been adopted.  Today, standard C code is
    >         simply a given.  (And, with standardization the promise of truly
    >         portable C code was finally fulfilled.)
    >
    > The book claims repeatedly to cover, and focus on, ANSI C.
    >
    > Whether it should or not, or whether it lives up to those claims, are
    > separate questions.  However, as usual, Nilges is utterly and delusionally
    > wrong -- he has mistaken his own prejudices for those of his idol.  In
    > fact, the C standard had been in widespread use for nearly six years
    > when the third edition was written.


    The book jacket was not under Herb's control, and it means partial
    coverage because in 1995 C existed (and it exists today) in multiple
    dialects.

    You don't understand how a proper standard would work. It would not
    have introduced "sequence points" nor would it have left actual
    parameter evaluation undefined because then the standard is as a non-
    deterministic finite automaton with respect to a DFA. Interesting from
    a theoretical viewpoint but useless in practice.

    It's like taking the mathematical union of English and Chinese such
    that your language is "the set of all statements valid in English or
    Chinese". This would be called "Chinglish" but for the fact that that
    already names a creole with the vocabulary of English and the grammar
    of Chinese. It's a useless definition in practice, a mathematical
    stunt valid only in formal language theory.

    I have no brief here for McGraw Hill's marketers who stamped "ansi" on
    a lot of books to sell them, without getting author feedback, any more
    for the treatment of authors by such companies and SAMS, which jailed
    a friend of mine for setting up a critical web site. The issue is the
    personal harm to Schildt, his reputation, and his family.
    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 4, 2010
    #11
  12. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 12:54 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-04-04,spinoza1111<> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 4, 6:39?am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > >> As for the page being a response to the
    > >> first edition, ISTR that it is actually based on the third edition
    > >> (perhaps Seebs would clarify this point?).

    > > I don't think he will, for part of reputation destruction is creating
    > > confusion.

    >
    > Which is funny, because I already posted a clear answer to that question
    > some hours ago.  It is indeed based on the third edition.  The second
    > had more errors, and I have never seen the first, but I've been told it
    > was even worse.


    Lack of diligence+malice+harm == libel.
    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 4, 2010
    #12
  13. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-04-04, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >
    > > spinoza1111 wrote:
    > >> For example, Peter and others like  to retail stories about
    > >> weird coworkers and form hypotheses about what I might do in order to
    > >> pad their case, as Peter, it appears, has padded his resume.

    > > I doubt that very much. Almost certainly he has to trim his CV
    > > mercilessly to keep it down to a reasonable length. I know I do. There
    > > is simply no room for padding.

    >
    > Actually, for once, Nilges is entirely correct (though almost certainly
    > by coincidence).
    >
    > I have maintained for some time a padded resume.
    >
    > http://www.seebs.net/res-p.html
    >
    > As the parent page says:
    >
    >         I was once told you can't get hired if you don't have a padded
    >         resume. Here's mine.
    >
    > Example listings:
    >
    >         Apple Computer
    >         Product Tester (1988-present)
    >         * Tested products after shipment.
    >         * Funded company.
    >
    > As you might expect, literally true...


    Hmm:

    * It's OK for you to so obviously pad. I mean, ha ha, we all "get"
    it: you've bought and used Apple computers and you've bought stock.
    All of us in the in-group grok it.

    * But it's also OK for you to waste, not the time of corporations (I
    don't give a **** about corporations) but of HR people who are
    punished for not finding enough candidates...who don't walk in like
    you would walk in I'd hasard, in a dirty T-shirt, to fail a simple
    (but o so flawed in your superior mind) test in C.

    * It's also OK for you on the job to cover up for your lack of
    programming skill to backstab coworkers.

    OK, so my fat pal Adorno is off-topic. Jaron Lanier is a modern
    computer scientist, and he charges clowns like you with a completely
    exaggerated notion of your intellects coupled with what he calls the
    ideology of VIOLATION.

    What is the "ideology of violation"?

    It is the belief of people who are, or in your case think they are, of
    such "superior intellect" that they can play tricks on people who are
    (often for racist reasons) considered by them to be of "inferior
    intellect".

    Jig's up, ASSHOLE. This situation is escalating. End.it.now. Remove
    CTCN and post an apology for the harm you have done.
    >
    > > Nilges was invited to provide evidence to support his wildly spurious
    > > claim, but he refused.

    >
    > Actually, it is the case that several of the errors cited were indeed
    > corrected in the 4th edition.  I don't have any reason to believe that
    > Nilges has a copy of the 4th edition on which to base his claim, but
    > he happens to be right.
    >
    > > typename functionname(parameterlist) means that functionname is a
    > > function that has the type "function taking parameterlist and returning
    > > typename". It does not mean that functionname has the type typename. To
    > > say that it does mean that is, at best, a spurious and ill-considered
    > > shortcut and, at worst, ghastlily wrong.

    >
    > Ayup.
    >
    > >> Therefore, it would have been absurd to publish on "standard C"

    > > On the contrary, it would have been absurd not to.

    >
    > We can resolve this easily.
    >
    > From the front cover of C:TCR 3rd Edition:
    >         The One "Must Have"
    >         Book on C --
    >         A Comprehensive
    >         Desktop Reference
    >         Covers ANSI C
    >
    > The spine says, in big letters (about the same size as the text "the
    > complete reference", but written in white-on-red to make it more
    > visible) "covers ANSI C".  The back cover likewise asserts that the
    > book "Covers ANSI C".
    >
    > The copyright date is 1995.  According to the Preface:
    >         When the second edition [of this book] was prepared, the ANSI C
    >         standard had just been adopted.  Today, standard C code is
    >         simply a given.  (And, with standardization the promise of truly
    >         portable C code was finally fulfilled.)
    >
    > The book claims repeatedly to cover, and focus on, ANSI C.
    >
    > Whether it should or not, or whether it lives up to those claims, are
    > separate questions.  However, as usual, Nilges is utterly and delusionally
    > wrong -- he has mistaken his own prejudices for those of his idol.  In
    > fact, the C standard had been in widespread use for nearly six years
    > when the third edition was written.
    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 4, 2010
    #13
  14. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 6:01 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, Seebs <> wrote:


    This matter has become very time consuming, perhaps for all concerned.
    Therefore, unilaterally, I'm going to declare a temporary "cease fire"
    in order for people to have time to study my document and let cooler
    heads prevail.

    I will stop posting and reading until Sunday 11 April China time.

    I still propose that Peter Seebach undertake to remove "C: the
    Complete Nonsense" based on its lack of valid and sufficient content
    in proportion to the damage it has done, and to replace it with an
    apology for the considerable misunderstanding it has created. I waive
    his having to apologize to me for the considerable harm he has done
    me.

    If Seebach undertakes to do both before 11 April, I would appreciate
    his notifying me of this decision and undertaking by email to
    .

    If this is not done, I will have to continue this matter, with
    escalation to the next level.

    Edward G. Nilges
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 4, 2010
    #14
  15. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    Re: In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: The Complete Nonsense"

    On 2010-04-04, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111 wrote:
    >> Therefore, unilaterally, I'm going to declare a temporary "cease fire"


    > You're not supposed to be shooting in the first place, bozo - you're
    > supposed to be learning.


    Well, yes. But since he's the only person attacking, he's the only person
    who can declare a "cease fire".

    >> in order for people to have time to study my document


    > I don't see why anyone would want to do that. It's nonsense, and a waste
    > of time.


    Exactly. It's not something anyone's going to bother "studying", because
    even the first casual glance reveals it to be utter nonsense. It walks a
    fine line between "wrong" and "not even wrong".

    >> I will stop posting and reading until Sunday 11 April China time.


    > I doubt that very much.


    Yeah, the guy who floods SRQ with garbage does the same thing, announces
    that he's stopping for a while, then decides that he has to start posting
    again anyway.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 4, 2010
    #15
  16. spinoza1111

    John Bode Guest

    On Apr 3, 11:54 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-04-04, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 4, 6:39?am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > >> As for the page being a response to the
    > >> first edition, ISTR that it is actually based on the third edition
    > >> (perhaps Seebs would clarify this point?).

    > > I don't think he will, for part of reputation destruction is creating
    > > confusion.

    >
    > Which is funny, because I already posted a clear answer to that question
    > some hours ago.  It is indeed based on the third edition.  The second
    > had more errors, and I have never seen the first, but I've been told it
    > was even worse.
    >


    I had a copy of the 1st edition; it went into the trash by the end of
    the semester. The main problem I had with it was that half of the
    examples wouldn't compile, and half of the ones that did compile had
    runtime problems. I asked one of my professors if the problem was me
    or the book; he agreed that the book was the problem, and, in his
    words, that Schildt didn't know the language half as well as he
    claimed.

    Part of the problem was that the book was *extremely* DOS-centric (I
    was working on VMS, so of course CC would bail as soon as it saw
    #include <conio.h>), but there were problems beyond that.

    Shortly after that I got Harbison & Steele, 2nd edition, and even
    though I couldn't immediately understand all of it, it quickly became
    my primary reference.

    I've thumbed through the 4th edition of C:TCR in bookstores; I haven't
    found the kinds of egregious errors that riddled the 1st edition, but
    that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
     
    John Bode, Apr 5, 2010
    #16
  17. spinoza1111

    Guest

    In article <>,
    spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > The text is on wordpress at
    >
    > http://spinoza1111.wordpress.com/20...hildt-an-analysis-of-c-the-complete-nonsense/
    >
    > For your convenience in making comments, here is the same text in
    > ASCII format.


    FSVO "ASCII" (i.e., not the 7-bit version).

    > In the Matter of Herb Schildt: an Analysis of "C: the Complete
    > Nonsense
    >
    > Let's now deconstruct Peter Seebach's document "C: the Complete
    > Nonsense", an attack on Herb Schildt's first edition of "C: the
    > Complete Reference" which in becoming the sole source of subsequent
    > claims that Schildt wrote "bad books", which unfairly damaged his good
    > name. Let's examine it, line by line.


    Others have commented on various parts of critique. I'll try to
    address only points that I don't think have been made already.

    [ snip ]

    > p. 53
    >
    > printf("%f", sizeof f);
    > printf("%d", sizeof(int));
    >
    > Seebach: "Clearly wrong; sizeof is not a double or float. It is also
    > not an int; it is an unsigned integral type, thus, one of unsigned
    > char, unsigned short,unsigned int, or unsigned long."
    >
    > "The only safe way to do this is: printf("%lu", (unsigned long)
    > sizeof(int)); while this is larger, a clear explanation of why it is
    > required will go a long way towards helping people understand C."
    >
    > Although I do not know why Herb used %f and %d format codes, he did
    > know, as Seebach seems not to, that all ints are floats and all floats
    > are doubles in well-structured languages.


    On many systems, of course, integers and floating-point values
    are represented differently. In that sense, ints are *not*
    floats, and even a claim that any int can be represented as,
    or converted to, a float depends on the relative sizes of the
    two types; if they are the same (as for example they are in Java
    [*]), there will be some values that can be exactly represented
    as ints but not as floats.

    [*] Whether Java meets your criteria for "well-structured language" --
    <shrug>

    [ snip ]

    > Page 163
    >
    > Schildt: "You may also declare main() as void if it does not return a
    > value."
    >
    > Seebach: "Specifically untrue. ANSI mandates two declarations for
    > main, and says that main may have declarations compatible with those.
    > Both return int."
    >
    > C was not standardized at the time this book was written, it existed
    > in several different dialects. In fact, I discovered (on behalf, as it
    > happens, of John "A Beautiful Mind" Nash) that the Microsoft compiler,
    > which many of Schildt's readers were using, is nonstandard at least as
    > regards the evaluation of compile-time constant expressions. While it
    > has become a Shibboleth or Secret Handshake among non-Microsoft
    > Illuminati that you must declare main as int, it's actually better
    > style to make it void unless you have an important message, such as
    > "up yours!" to the OS.
    >
    > But this shibboleth has become an article of faith amongst the anti-
    > Microsoft crowd who compensate for the meaninglessness of their lives
    > and general incompetence by fantasizing that they are Special, and the
    > OS gives a hoot.


    It may be that all(?) of the ways of invoking a program in a
    Windows environment ignore its return value. This is not the
    case in all operating systems:

    Command shells for UNIX-like systems may (usually do?) provide
    access to the return value via an environment variable, and some
    shell scripts make use of it. Other mechanisms for invoking
    programs (e.g., fork/exec*/waitpid) also provide access to the
    return code.

    And didn't JCL for the venerable IBM OS/VS operating system(s) use
    the value returned by a called program to control execution flow?
    That's how I remember it anyway.

    To me it seems like good practice to write code that complies with
    the requirements of as many environments as possible. <shrug>

    [ snip ]

    > Hitler was not anonymous; but his followers were, in many cases. And
    > Mike Godwin is wrong; the probability of comparision to Hitler in
    > online discussions "converges to unity" not because people are being
    > shrill and foolish, but because Hitler is our inner troll, as Lanier
    > calls it. He's the face in the crowd in Munich in August 1914 baying
    > for war who yearns to be on the podium, and non-anonymous.
    >
    > Actually I should have been able to deduce Fascism from the memory of
    > my childhood.


    Your childhood? my, you must be older than I thought ....

    [ snip ]

    > occurring?


    but you remembered to double the "r" this time ....

    [ snip ]

    > embarrassed


    and here

    [ snip ]

    > In Fascism, the nightmare of childhood has
    > realized itself.
    >
    > Theodore Wiesengrund Adorno, Minima Moralia, 1948


    *OH!* Those weren't your words, were they? Well, perhaps there
    were quotation marks, or indentation, or something identifying this
    text as a quotation in the version of this review posted at wordpress.

    --
    B. L. Massingill
    ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
     
    , Apr 5, 2010
    #17
  18. spinoza1111

    John Bode Guest

    On Apr 3, 1:25 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:

    [snip]

    >
    > p. 53
    >
    > printf("%f", sizeof f);
    > printf("%d", sizeof(int));
    >
    > Seebach: “Clearly wrong; sizeof is not a double or float. It is also
    > not an int; it is an unsigned integral type, thus, one of unsigned
    > char, unsigned short,unsigned int, or unsigned long.”
    >
    > “The only safe way to do this is: printf(“%lu”, (unsigned long)
    > sizeof(int)); while this is larger, a clear explanation of why it is
    > required will go a long way towards helping people understand C.”
    >
    > Although I do not know why Herb used %f and %d format codes, he did
    > know, as Seebach seems not to, that all ints are floats and all floats
    > are doubles in well-structured languages.


    It's not a matter of whether ints are subsets of floats. It's a matter
    of how the printf() function expects conversion specifiers and the
    types of the corresponding arguments to match. If you tell printf()
    you're going to pass it a value of one type but actually pass a value
    of a different type (with a different size and/or representation),
    then you're not going to get the correct output.

    > Because at the time and
    > even, to an extent, now, C was almost as diverse of the languages of
    > China, Herb used the educated programmer’s maxim, which is to first
    > code as if the compiler writers and language designers knew at least
    > as much as the intelligent programmer, and fix problems later.
    >


    Don't waste the energy trying to defend this snippet; you'll hurt
    yourself. This kind of error is just plain sloppiness/carelessness on
    Schildt's part. Even at their most fractured (which was nowhere near
    what you suggest), the various implementations of C defined the same
    interface for printf(). printf("%f", sizeof f) wasn't going to work
    *anywhere*.

    This was an honest-to-God mistake on Schildt's part. Deal with it and
    move on.
     
    John Bode, Apr 5, 2010
    #18
  19. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 5, 2:04 am, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-04-04, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >
    > > spinoza1111 wrote:
    > >> Therefore, unilaterally, I'm going to declare a temporary "cease fire"

    > > You're not supposed to be shooting in the first place, bozo - you're
    > > supposed to be learning.

    >
    > Well, yes.  But since he's the only person attacking, he's the only person
    > who can declare a "cease fire".


    No, I have agreement on the essentials from two others here.

    Keep in mind that you and Heathfield et al. are of cardinality
    approximately equal to 10e1 and that your consensus is for this reason
    statistically meaningless.
    >
    > >> in order for people to have time to study my document

    > > I don't see why anyone would want to do that. It's nonsense, and a waste
    > > of time.

    >
    > Exactly.  It's not something anyone's going to bother "studying", because
    > even the first casual glance reveals it to be utter nonsense.  It walks a
    > fine line between "wrong" and "not even wrong".


    That makes no sense. Is this why you failed to take computer science?
    Did you take a first casual glance at the big textbook for CS101 and
    decide it was nonsense?

    Peter, I've done you the real courtesy you should have done Schildt,
    of a thorough analysis of CTCN. If you felt as strongly as you do that
    Schildt was in error in a special, extraordinary way, then like me,
    you needed to post, in place of what you posted, a line by line, error
    by error analysis. But it appears to me that you have a habit of
    making "snap" judgements about people and books.

    >
    > >> I will stop posting and reading until Sunday 11 April China time.

    > > I doubt that very much.

    >
    > Yeah, the guy who floods SRQ with garbage does the same thing, announces
    > that he's stopping for a while, then decides that he has to start posting
    > again anyway.


    Indeed, I have rejoined the discussion a little early to prevent
    attacks on McClean and Navia, who have taken a position that software
    and book authors shouldn't have to deal with trivial and poorly
    written attacks.

    And, once again: people who cannot make valid arguments on the Net
    typically start raving about SOME OTHER poster or coworker. This is a
    new form of the logical fallacy of argument from false analogy.

    You can end this by removing CTCN and replacing it with an apology.
    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 6, 2010
    #19
  20. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Apr 4, 9:13 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111 wrote:
    > > On Apr 4, 6:01 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > >> On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, Seebs <> wrote:

    >
    > > This matter has become very time consuming, perhaps for all concerned.

    >
    > Not for me. It took me a couple of hours last night to catch up with
    > about 400 clc articles posted over this last week or so, and a few
    > minutes to reply to a few of them.
    >
    > > Therefore, unilaterally, I'm going to declare a temporary "cease fire"

    >
    > You're not supposed to be shooting in the first place, bozo - you're
    > supposed to be learning.
    >
    > > in order for people to have time to study my document

    >
    > I don't see why anyone would want to do that. It's nonsense, and a waste
    > of time.
    >
    > > I will stop posting and reading until Sunday 11 April China time.

    >
    > I doubt that very much.


    I was surprised to find a buy in so quickly from McClean and Navia,
    and I would like to defend their good names as well as that of Schildt
    and me.
    >
    > <nonsense snipped>
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    > Sig line vacant - apply within
     
    spinoza1111, Apr 6, 2010
    #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. spinoza1111

    In the matter of Herb Schildt

    spinoza1111, Sep 25, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    384
    Colonel Harlan Sanders
    Oct 5, 2009
  2. spinoza1111

    Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt

    spinoza1111, Dec 22, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    811
    spinoza1111
    Dec 26, 2009
  3. spinoza1111
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    502
    Jens Thoms Toerring
    Apr 10, 2010
  4. spinoza1111
    Replies:
    137
    Views:
    2,167
    spinoza1111
    May 28, 2010
  5. spinoza1111

    In the matter of Herb Schildt: article renamed

    spinoza1111, May 8, 2010, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    528
    Seebs
    May 12, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page