Is C99 C?

[spinoza1111]

On 2009-08-04 09:23:29 -0600,spinoza1111<[email protected]> said:
[74 lines deleted]
You try way too hard to sound smart.

So hard that perhaps I am smart. I wonder if you could tell the
difference between "sounding smart" and actually being smart, to the
extent that being able to express concepts is such a large part of
being a smart bastard...even in, perhaps especially in, programming.

Yeah, I can tell the difference.  You're rambling in flowery language
about bizarre, off-topic things nobody cares about.  I've seen better
trolls.

I care about them, and I'm somebody: your language is that of the
fourteen-year old. News flash: I wish I had a dollar for every time I
heard some snot-nosed little junior college creep of a computer
programmer call correct spelling and accurate grammar "flowery".

 

[luserXtrog]

On 2009-08-06 05:46:29 -0600,spinoza1111<[email protected]> said:

On Aug 6, 11:44 am, (e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

On 2009-08-04 09:23:29 -0600,spinoza1111<[email protected]> said:
[74 lines deleted]
You try way too hard to sound smart.
So hard that perhaps I am smart. I wonder if you could tell the
difference between "sounding smart" and actually being smart, to the
extent that being able to express concepts is such a large part of
being a smart bastard...even in, perhaps especially in, programming.

Presence or absence of discernable productive purpose.

I care about them, and I'm somebody: your language is that of the
fourteen-year old. News flash: I wish I had a dollar for every time I
heard some snot-nosed little junior college creep of a computer
programmer call correct spelling and accurate grammar "flowery".

"Flowery" refers to the lack of stems and leaves and roots. Your
posts have no thesis, no apparent constructive purpose, and an
abundance of rudeness. While some of your observations about the
label "troll" appear valid, `That's how all guilty men speak.'

And I went to state school, so there!

 

[spinoza1111]

On 2009-08-06 05:46:29 -0600,spinoza1111<[email protected]> said:
On Aug 6, 11:44 am, (e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

On 2009-08-04 09:23:29 -0600,spinoza1111<[email protected]> said:
[74 lines deleted]
You try way too hard to sound smart.
So hard that perhaps I am smart. I wonder if you could tell the
difference between "sounding smart" and actually being smart, to the
extent that being able to express concepts is such a large part of
being a smart bastard...even in, perhaps especially in, programming..

Presence or absence of discernable productive purpose.

I care about them, and I'm somebody: your language is that of the
fourteen-year old. News flash: I wish I had a dollar for every time I
heard some snot-nosed little junior college creep of a computer
programmer call correct spelling and accurate grammar "flowery".

"Flowery" refers to the lack of stems and leaves and roots. Your
posts have no thesis, no apparent constructive purpose, and an
abundance of rudeness.

I don't think any one of you can speak to me about rudeness given the
constant attempts to destroy personalities here. Furthermore, if you
can't get the thesis that doesn't mean it's not there.

While some of your observations about the
label "troll" appear valid, `That's how all guilty men speak.'

That's the rule in the Mike Judge film Idiocracy when Joe Normal tries
to defend himself in court.

 

[luserXtrog]

New way? What's this about a new way?
There's been some very large talk behind my slepping back.
I know it.

A Clockwork Orange contains such lovely abuse of language.
Although, I must confess I didn't read the last chapter.

 

[Tim Streater]

[...] C is no more a single language than English or even French.
There are dialects of all three yet they're still under the umbrella
of a single name.

To compare a programming language to a human language insults both.

Why?  They're essentially the same thing.  Both have symbols,
grammars, rules, syntax, etc...

"The use of the Chomsky formalism is also responsible for the term
"programming language", because programming languages seemed to
exhibit a strucure similar to spoken languages. We believe that
this term is rather unfortunate on the whole, because a programming
language is not spoken, and therefore is not a language in the true
sense of the word. Formalism or formal notation would have been
more appropriate terms."
Niklaus Wirth


I consider the comparison of machine languages with natural languages
to be a metaphor. And a fruitful one at that. Just as natural
languages
have dialects so do machine languages.

What is Fortran? Is it Fortran 4 or Fortran 77 or Fortran-De-Jeux?


nothing to amend

That's because we got it right the first time (see my sig), although the
fascist "Labour" government has been trying to erode our rights over the
last dozen years or so.

I take it that Mr Spinoza is the same lefty twerp who infested either
the PHP or JavaScript groups (I forget which, now) a couple of years
ago.

 

[Tim Streater]

On Aug 4, 8:56 pm, Nick Keighley <[email protected]>
wrote:

The UK has no written Constitution but a strong Constitutional
tradition all the same. Its documents being the piece of paper King
John signed so mulishly at Runnymede, the Declaration of Right of 1688
(mostly a whack against the Papists), the Reform bill of 1830, and
Bagehot's essay.

And the various Representation of the People Acts, let's not forget them.

 

[spinoza1111]

"spinoza1111" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio









The Geometry had some arguments that were perfect,
all of them were already said, there was nothing to say
in that regard no problem at all;
so people lost interest of these argument for study and
speak of other: the part of mathematic that has problem
for resolve

in the same way (i make this analogy)

if exist a perfect computer language people perhaps program with it
but never speak about it or it will be a problematic language that
replace that perfect language
It is better find a language with the problems to resolve
than a perfect language- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm, interesting point, rather like that in The Princeton Companion to
Mathematics, which dismisses the viewpoint of Russell's Principia in
favor of the unsolved hard stuff, such as NP completeness and Reimann.

However...isn't it completely irresponsible to mess with people's
lives by deliberately choosing a "hard and bad" language? Isn't that
what people accuse lawyers of doing? And wouldn't the public interest
be served better if from now on, we all used garbage collecting
bytecode languages for all but OS kernels?

Programmers talk a good game about precision while in so many cases
being unable to express themselves with precision, both because verbal
people avoid programming and also because low down in the corporate
hierarchy, a sumptuary law obtains: people actually able to express
themselves well are trouble makers.

Basically, programming got boring a long time ago, but nobody wanted
to admit it. C keeps life interesting.