Open letter to Mr Thompson

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jacob navia, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Look Keith:

    You pointed out that an overflow checking mechanism should also
    include checking for overflow whan a narrowing assignment
    is done, i.e. an integer into a char, etc.

    I think that's a good idea. Specifically, you said:

    <quote>
    Ok, if it's going to be controlled by a pragma, I wouldn't object to
    using a separate one for conversions. But I would object to adding
    one to the language without the other.
    <end quote>

    I answered you then, that it would be nice if you would propose
    the narrowing conversion check, and I would propose the overflow check.

    Specifically, I said:

    It would be much more productive for all if you worked
    to propose things too.

    You answered to almost all the messages I wrote in that thread except
    to that one.

    You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
    just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.

    I have proposed many things here, besides the extensions of
    lcc-win. Some of them also in comp.std.c.

    Maybe is time for you to propose a change to improve the language?

    You seemed to agree (together with Sosman) that overflow checking is
    necessary.

    Why not getting positive for a change?

    Yours sincerely
    jacob navia, Sep 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jacob navia <> writes:
    > Look Keith:
    >
    > You pointed out that an overflow checking mechanism should also
    > include checking for overflow whan a narrowing assignment
    > is done, i.e. an integer into a char, etc.
    >
    > I think that's a good idea. Specifically, you said:
    >
    > <quote>
    > Ok, if it's going to be controlled by a pragma, I wouldn't object to
    > using a separate one for conversions. But I would object to adding
    > one to the language without the other.
    > <end quote>
    >
    > I answered you then, that it would be nice if you would propose
    > the narrowing conversion check, and I would propose the overflow check.
    >
    > Specifically, I said:
    >
    > It would be much more productive for all if you worked
    > to propose things too.
    >
    > You answered to almost all the messages I wrote in that thread except
    > to that one.


    I dislike certain aspects of your proposal, and I'm not interested
    in creating a parallel proposal that's consistent with it. My own
    preference would be for something similar to an exception-handling
    mechanism, probably not as elaborate as C++ or Ada's mechanism.

    I might consider putting together a proposal along those lines, but
    it's doubtful that I'll have the time.

    I note that exception handling mechanisms for C have been proposed
    before; I might look over some of those proposals.

    > You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
    > just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.
    >
    > I have proposed many things here, besides the extensions of
    > lcc-win. Some of them also in comp.std.c.
    >
    > Maybe is time for you to propose a change to improve the language?
    >
    > You seemed to agree (together with Sosman) that overflow checking is
    > necessary.
    >
    > Why not getting positive for a change?


    "aren't always just destroying"??

    "getting positive for a change"??

    What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?

    You've proposed a change to the language. I've spent substantial
    time reading it, critiquing it, and suggesting improvements.
    And you thank me by insulting me.

    If I do choose to propose any change to the C language, I'll do it
    when and how I choose, and you will not be involved.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Sep 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Keith Thompson a écrit :
    >>
    >> Why not getting positive for a change?

    >
    > "aren't always just destroying"??
    >
    > "getting positive for a change"??
    >
    > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
    >


    OK.

    Regulars are like that. Go on then.

    You seemed to be reasonable sometimes. Actually you are exactly like
    heathfield and co.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2009
    #3
  4. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Keith Thompson a écrit :
    >
    > "aren't always just destroying"??
    >
    > "getting positive for a change"??
    >
    > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
    >


    I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.

    precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
    that he contributes the change in the language the he
    himself said would be correct.

    The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
    a simple regular...

    He was forced to confirm what I said: regulars are *unable* to do
    anything constructive. The only reason the feel their
    existence is to police this group, making all other people
    go away.

    Many valuable contributors have left this group, as many
    have left the language itself. Nobody tries to promote C
    in public, groups about C are disbaneded, and we get
    the situation in this group. They destroy everything
    else.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2009
    #4
  5. On 10 Sep, 13:39, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Keith Thompson a écrit :


    > > "aren't always just destroying"??

    >
    > > "getting positive for a change"??

    >
    > > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?

    >
    > I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.


    which ought to tell you something...


    > precisely when in a very courteous message,


    !! I really think you actually believe that!

    Did you read his post? He'd gone to the trouble to read and criticise
    your proposal (criticism isn't a bad thing if it's done with the aim
    of improving something).

    You then come back with a series of sly digs.

    Your fundamental mistake is to treat "the regulars" as a monolithic
    group. If you have been sinned against (and you need to grow a much
    thicker
    skin) by one of your "regulars" and doesn't mean all the people
    you call "regulars" are of the same opinion.

    You've managed to provoke a very patient man.

    Me, I only give 'em a little rope and then that's it.
    I particularly object to you inventing my opinions for me- but thats
    just
    another symptom of your "regulars" obscession.


    > I proposed
    > that he contributes the change in the language the he
    > himself said would be correct.


    you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
    work involved in standardisation.

    > The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
    > a simple regular...


    yeah right


    > He was forced to confirm what I said: regulars are *unable* to do
    > anything constructive. The only reason the feel their
    > existence is to police this group, making all other people
    > go away.


    more RC

    > Many valuable contributors have left this group, as many
    > have left the language itself. Nobody tries to promote C
    > in public, groups about C are disbaneded, and we get
    > the situation in this group. They destroy everything
    > else.


    yadder yadder ya
    Nick Keighley, Sep 10, 2009
    #5
  6. jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Keith Thompson a écrit :
    > >
    > > "aren't always just destroying"??
    > >
    > > "getting positive for a change"??
    > >
    > > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
    > >


    > I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.


    Perhaps that should make you think a bit.

    > precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
    > that he contributes the change in the language the he
    > himself said would be correct.


    Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
    Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
    your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
    and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
    that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
    newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
    here). And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
    post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
    your compiler.

    You seem to have a complete blind spot when you write
    something. I can hardly remember posts by you where you
    don't insult someone (unless it's in reply to someone
    you seem to see as a potential customer). On the other
    hand the smallest bit that could remotely be interpreted
    as critique of anything you write drives you inevitably
    into fits.

    > The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
    > a simple regular...


    > The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
    > a simple regular...


    Bullshit. You and mostly you alone are constantly behaving
    like a spoiled brat and I guess most people are, like me,
    fed up with it to the brim. Your logic is always the same:
    if someone doesn't immediately supports your hobby-horse idea
    of the day, singing halleluya and praising you, then it is
    "destroying" and "unproductive" or whatever other invective
    just crosses your mind. Technical arguments from people
    obviously having a much broader range of experience than you
    don't count since what you don't know about doesn't exist
    or is irrelevant.

    Much luck with your newly-found friend, Mr. Nilges.

    *PLONK*
    --
    \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___
    \__________________________ http://toerring.de
    Jens Thoms Toerring, Sep 10, 2009
    #6
  7. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Nick Keighley a écrit :

    >> I proposed
    >> that he contributes the change in the language the he
    >> himself said would be correct.

    >
    > you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
    > work involved in standardisation.
    >


    Sure, that's why Thompson and the other regs refuse to do anything.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2009
    #7
  8. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Jens Thoms Toerring a écrit :
    >
    > Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
    > Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
    > your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
    > and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
    > that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
    > newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
    > here).


    I am talking about taking the positive step of proposing a
    change that he himself thinks is necessary.

    He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
    a change. That would be a break in the idea that C is
    perfect as it is and all changes must be banned, as the
    politics of the committee seems to be right now.

    > And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
    > post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
    > your compiler.
    >


    I started a series of tutorials here (that you can
    read in the archives) about many parts ofbthe language
    that are normally left out. I spoke about debuggers, linkers,
    and many other things. My posts were critized as
    "off topic", etc by the same people

    All my contributions where there isn't any mention of
    lcc-win that I do regularly since years are ignored.

    [rest of drivel snipped]
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2009
    #8
  9. In article <h8as25$slm$> writes:
    > Keith Thompson a écrit :
    > >
    > > "aren't always just destroying"??
    > >
    > > "getting positive for a change"??
    > >
    > > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
    > >

    >
    > I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
    >
    > precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
    > that he contributes the change in the language the he
    > himself said would be correct.


    Very courteous? A message where you accuse Keith of "aren't always
    just destrying" and "getting positive for a change"? Saying things
    like that to somebody is courteous? Is that perhaps French courtesy?
    --
    dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
    home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
    Dik T. Winter, Sep 10, 2009
    #9
  10. On 10 Sep, 14:40, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Jens Thoms Toerring a écrit :


    > > Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
    > > Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
    > > your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
    > > and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
    > > that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
    > > newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
    > > here).

    >
    > I am talking about taking the positive step of proposing a
    > change that he himself thinks is necessary.


    I don't think he actually claimed it was necessary.
    He suggested that if you were going to have overflow
    detection then potential overflows that you'd
    ommitted form your proposal should be included (if
    memory serves me right).


    > He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
    > a change.


    I thought he did propose a change..


    > That would be a break in the idea that C is
    > perfect


    this is a strawman of your invention


    > as it is and all changes must be banned, as the
    > politics of the committee seems to be right now.


    your own paranoid delusion


    >  > And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
    >
    > > post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
    > > your compiler.

    >
    > I started a series of tutorials here (that you can
    > read in the archives) about many parts ofbthe language
    > that are normally left out. I spoke about debuggers, linkers,


    though interesting topics neither is part of the C language.
    You could have posted your tutorials to a web-site and
    announced them here. I admit you've have still got *someone*
    complaining but you'd have had a lot less rocks thrown at you.


    > and many other things. My posts were critized as
    > "off topic",


    becaus ethey were


    > etc by the same people


    I won't tolerate. Your "regulars conspiracy group" doesn't exist.
    I'm going to call you on this, but not for a while...


    > All my contributions where there isn't any mention of
    > lcc-win that I do regularly since years are ignored.


    ....because I'm going to give you a good long rest.

    PLONK!
    Nick Keighley, Sep 10, 2009
    #10
  11. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Nick Keighley a écrit :
    > ...because I'm going to give you a good long rest.
    >
    > PLONK!
    >
    >


    I hope that you do this. It will nice not hearing from you
    again.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2009
    #11
  12. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Richard Heathfield a écrit :
    How do you
    > expect to persuade anyone if you keep insulting them all the time?
    >


    I did not insult anyone, neither did I call anyone "a jerk"

    I am not interested in convincing you of anything, and since
    Mr Thompson doesn't want to cooperate in anything productive
    it is better he stops answering my messages, as you could do
    too.

    I will go on posting here whatever I think it is appropiate.
    This is not your newsgroup.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2009
    #12
  13. jacob navia <> writes:
    > Keith Thompson a écrit :
    >> "aren't always just destroying"??
    >>
    >> "getting positive for a change"??
    >>
    >> What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?

    >
    > I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.


    Probably not, but it is fairly rare, and it's something I resort to
    only after repeated provocation.

    > precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
    > that he contributes the change in the language the he
    > himself said would be correct.


    A "very courteous manner"? Are you serious?

    Take a look at the phrases I quoted above. Go back to your previous
    article and read them in context. You accused me and the others
    of "always just destroying". You told me to get "positive for a
    change", ignoring any and all positive contributions I've made here,
    *including* trying to help you with your current proposal.

    You personally and directly insulted me, and I finally responded in
    kind.

    [nonsense snipped]

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Sep 10, 2009
    #13
  14. jacob navia <> writes:
    > Richard Heathfield a écrit :
    > How do you
    >> expect to persuade anyone if you keep insulting them all the time?

    >
    > I did not insult anyone, neither did I call anyone "a jerk"

    [...]

    No, you did not call anyone a "jerk". I called you a jerk.

    You did however (a) lump me in with a group you call "the regulars"
    and (b) insult that group, and me personally.

    And you don't even know it, which is probably the saddest part of
    this whole thing.

    Here's a direct quote from your previous article:

    | You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
    | just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.

    Imagine that, say, Richard Heathfield or I (you seem to have trouble
    telling us apart) had said something like that to you, out of the
    blue, in a thread titled "Open letter to Mr. Navia":

    jacob, you now have the opportunity to prove that you aren't
    always just destroying ...

    Wouldn't you feel just a little bit insulted by that?

    Or is it only constructive criticism that you find insulting?

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Sep 10, 2009
    #14
  15. jacob navia <> writes:
    [...]
    > He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
    > a change.

    [...]

    I proposed a number of changes to your proposals.

    You're welcome.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Sep 10, 2009
    #15
  16. jacob navia

    Rui Maciel Guest

    jacob navia wrote:

    > I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
    >
    > precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
    > that he contributes the change in the language the he
    > himself said would be correct.


    Your definition of "very courteous" is very odd. In the message you wrote and are referring to you publicly
    challenged someone and pressured him to do your bidding while accusing him, along with others, of " always
    just destroying". Do you actually believe anyone would interpret such passive-aggressive behavior as being
    "very courteous"?


    Rui Maciel
    Rui Maciel, Sep 10, 2009
    #16
  17. jacob navia

    Rui Maciel Guest

    jacob navia wrote:

    > OK.
    >
    > Regulars are like that. Go on then.
    >
    > You seemed to be reasonable sometimes. Actually you are exactly like
    > heathfield and co.


    What do you actually gain by acting so childish?


    Rui Maciel
    Rui Maciel, Sep 10, 2009
    #17
  18. jacob navia

    Seebs Guest

    On 2009-09-10, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
    > or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.


    I don't know that I buy the notion that there's a "clique" at all,
    but even apart from that... Improving the language is hard, and most of
    us aren't in a setting where we have the information we'd need to make
    good suggestions.

    > But noooone of them would start a discussion or do anything
    > to improve things.


    "Improve" is a tough call sometimes. Figuring out what changes to make,
    and how, is not trivial.

    > The only thing that he answers is that I am a jerk. Sure, he
    > criticized my proposal and he read it as he says.
    >
    > When I invite him to collaborate and stopping being purely negative
    > he treats me of a jerk.


    I haven't seen the proposal. However, there are many proposals I've seen
    over the years which were such that there was nothing to collaborate ON;
    it was just plain a bad idea.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2009, 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, Sep 10, 2009
    #18
  19. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Rui Maciel a écrit :
    > jacob navia wrote:
    >
    >> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
    >>
    >> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
    >> that he contributes the change in the language the he
    >> himself said would be correct.

    >
    > Your definition of "very courteous" is very odd. In the message you wrote and are referring to you publicly
    > challenged someone and pressured him to do your bidding while accusing him, along with others, of " always
    > just destroying". Do you actually believe anyone would interpret such passive-aggressive behavior as being
    > "very courteous"?
    >
    >
    > Rui Maciel


    Sure He treats me of "jerk" and I am not courteous enough.

    Regulars logic 100%

    I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
    or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.

    That is their mantra. Nothing must be changed. They will surely
    say that gets() is bad, but start a discussion in comp.lang.c
    or in comp.std.c about why that thing stays in the standard?

    Never.

    I start always that discussions, and it was from one of those
    discussions that I obtained that Gwyn sends at last a proposal
    to fix gets().

    But noooone of them would start a discussion or do anything
    to improve things. I *thought* (for the nth time) that thompson
    could propose something and be constructive.

    The only thing that he answers is that I am a jerk. Sure, he
    criticized my proposal and he read it as he says.

    When I invite him to collaborate and stopping being purely negative
    he treats me of a jerk.

    And you?

    I am agressive because he treats me of a jerk.

    OK.

    It is not worth even to insult you mister.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2009
    #19
  20. Rui Maciel <> writes:
    > jacob navia wrote:
    >> OK.
    >>
    >> Regulars are like that. Go on then.
    >>
    >> You seemed to be reasonable sometimes. Actually you are exactly like
    >> heathfield and co.

    >
    > What do you actually gain by acting so childish?


    Attention?

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Sep 10, 2009
    #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. Michael B. Williams

    for Mr Andrew Thompson re: Math.pow Question

    Michael B. Williams, May 30, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    338
    Andrew Thompson
    May 30, 2004
  2. Ryan Stewart

    ATTN: Andrew Thompson

    Ryan Stewart, Jun 19, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    346
    Andrew Thompson
    Jun 25, 2004
  3. vertigo

    big letter -> small letter

    vertigo, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    750
    Reinhold Birkenfeld
    Jul 6, 2004
  4. Tony Meyer

    RE: big letter -> small letter

    Tony Meyer, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    501
    Tony Meyer
    Jul 6, 2004
  5. Andrew McNamara

    Re: big letter -> small letter

    Andrew McNamara, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    749
    Scott David Daniels
    Jul 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page