Open letter to Mr Thompson

[jacob navia]

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

 

[Keith Thompson]

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.

 

[jacob navia]

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?

OK.

Regulars are like that. Go on then.

You seemed to be reasonable sometimes. Actually you are exactly like
heathfield and co.

 

[jacob navia]

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.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Keith Thompson a écrit :



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

 

[Jens Thoms Toerring]

Keith Thompson a écrit :

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*

 

[jacob navia]

Nick Keighley a écrit :

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]

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]

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Keith Thompson a écrit :
>
> 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?

 

[Nick Keighley]

Jens Thoms Toerring a écrit :

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


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!

 

[jacob navia]

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]

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.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson a écrit :

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]

Richard Heathfield a écrit :
How do you

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]

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

[...]

I proposed a number of changes to your proposals.

You're welcome.

 

[Rui Maciel]

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]

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

 

[Seebs]

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

 

[jacob navia]

Rui Maciel a écrit :

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.

 

[Keith Thompson]

What do you actually gain by acting so childish?

Attention?