[OT] - propagation of incorrect information

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Mantorok Redgormor, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. Anyone come across the latest piece of crap
    floating around the internet? I'm referring to:
    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872

    "Portability?!
    Please. There are at least four official specifications
    of C I could name from the top of my head and no compiler
    has properly implemented all of them. They conflict, and
    they grow and grow."

    "New compilers and libraries are developed and
    proprietary extensions are being developed.
    GNU C isn't the same as ANSI C isn't the same as
    K&R C isn't the same as Microsoft C isn't the same
    as POSIX C."

    This guy doesn't even understand the
    fundamental differences of specifications
    he has listed as "official" specifications
    of C.

    "The C standards don't make sense
    Only one simple quote from the ANSI C standard -
    nay, a single footnote - is needed to demonstrate
    the immense idiocy of the whole thing. Ladies,
    gentlemen, and everyone else, I present to
    you...footnote 82:

    All whitespace is equivalent except in
    certain situations.

    I'd make a cutting remark about this, but
    it'd be too easy."


    What is so idiotic about that?



    --
    nethlek
    Mantorok Redgormor, Feb 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mantorok Redgormor <> spoke thus:

    > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872


    "Buffer overflows abound in virtually any substantial piece of C code."

    I think we can all see what the character of this document is based on
    such observations, and it's somewhat disappointing that kuro5hin would
    publish such a screed.

    I suppose that's what Kernighan gets for denigrating Pascal in the
    elder days.

    --
    Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
    ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
    Christopher Benson-Manica, Feb 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mantorok Redgormor

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <> (Mantorok Redgormor) writes:

    >Anyone come across the latest piece of crap
    >floating around the internet? I'm referring to:
    >http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872


    You must have far too much time on your hands if you read any piece of
    garbage posted on the Web.

    Are you sure you've read anything available on the excellent (even if
    slightly outated) site http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/index.html ?

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
    Dan Pop, Feb 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Mantorok Redgormor

    jacob navia Guest

    Pascal has good ideas and C too.
    Please let's keep cool. We are speaking about computer
    languages and not about religions.

    Many of the criticisms have more than a grain of truth in
    them, specially what strings and arrays bound checking
    is concerned.

    I am not a religious person and for me C is not a
    religion. I do not feel emotionally upset when somebody
    critics the obvious shortcommings of some C constructs.

    I try to *fix* the problems and address the *real* issues
    behind the critics of C.

    I believe that a bounded array/string data type is easily
    introduced in C using operator overloading.

    This is even better than the Pascal solution since the
    bounds checking is customizable and not fixed once
    for all in the language. A default implementation
    should be offered ( I am working on it), that the
    user can customize, or not use, if he/she wishes.
    This way we have the best of all worlds: flexibility
    AND security according to the programmer's priorities.

    The critics of malloc/free problems have many *real*
    arguments. I proposed here the garbage collector,
    that makes all those problems obsolete without
    *forcing* the gc solution into all applications, even those
    that do not needed like in Java.

    C retains the flexibility needed to change the allocation
    strategy in a per application basis, and is not TIED
    to a GC like Java.

    But we have to admit that offering only malloc/free
    (or new/delete for that matter) is not very advanced
    and should be complemented with a gc for all those
    applications that benefit from it.

    The article against Pascal wasn't a good idea. It was
    very polemic, like the article in that web site.

    When speaking about technical matters, it is better to
    leave emotions outside the discussion. Machines
    have no emotions, let's speak about this without
    boring flame wars.

    jacob
    jacob navia, Feb 12, 2004
    #4
  5. Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    > Mantorok Redgormor <> spoke thus:
    >
    >
    >>http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872

    >
    >
    > "Buffer overflows abound in virtually any substantial piece of C code."
    >
    > I think we can all see what the character of this document is based on
    > such observations, and it's somewhat disappointing that kuro5hin would
    > publish such a screed.


    I guess the editors like a good troll war as much as any group of boneheads.

    >
    > I suppose that's what Kernighan gets for denigrating Pascal in the
    > elder days.
    >


    bwk didn't denigrate Pascal. He tried to rewrite a suite of programs
    (the Software Tools) in Pascal, gave up, and wrote an article detailing
    the features of Pascal that made him give up. While the article is often
    held up as a comparison between C and Pascal, it isn't. He was writing
    about the properties of Pascal and how those properties make the
    language entirely unsuitable for the kind of programming he was doing.
    (He was vindicated when the Pascal language was extended in a thousand
    different ways when a thousand different compiler vendors decided that
    standard Pascal wasn't usable as anything other than what it had been
    designed for: A teaching language strict enough to /force/ good
    programming practice, at least in Wirth's view. No such language (that
    is, no bondage-and-discipline language) has ever been popular in the
    programmer world (see Ada).)

    If you haven't read the article, it's on bwk's own page. It's also
    mirrored around the world. Google does a particularaly good job of
    finding it.

    --
    My address is yvoregnevna gjragl-guerr gjb-gubhfnaq guerr ng lnubb qbg pbz
    Note: Rot13 and convert spelled-out numbers to numerical equivalents.
    August Derleth, Feb 14, 2004
    #5
  6. August Derleth <> writes:
    [...]
    > bwk didn't denigrate Pascal. He tried to rewrite a suite of programs
    > (the Software Tools) in Pascal, gave up, and wrote an article
    > detailing the features of Pascal that made him give up. While the
    > article is often held up as a comparison between C and Pascal, it
    > isn't. He was writing about the properties of Pascal and how those
    > properties make the language entirely unsuitable for the kind of
    > programming he was doing. (He was vindicated when the Pascal language
    > was extended in a thousand different ways when a thousand different
    > compiler vendors decided that standard Pascal wasn't usable as
    > anything other than what it had been designed for: A teaching language
    > strict enough to /force/ good programming practice, at least in
    > Wirth's view. No such language (that is, no bondage-and-discipline
    > language) has ever been popular in the programmer world (see Ada).)


    As long as we're [OT], I'll mention that calling Ada a
    bondage-and-discipline language is misleading. It certainly has
    stricter type checking than most languages, and it encourages a more
    disciplined programming style, but it also has plenty of features for
    doing low-level programming (features that standard Pascal lacks). If
    you want to pick apart the bits of a pointer, you can do it; you just
    have to be more explicit about it.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
    Keith Thompson, Feb 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Mantorok Redgormor

    Elliot Marks Guest

    August Derleth wrote:
    > Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >
    >> Mantorok Redgormor <> spoke thus:
    >>
    >>
    >>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/7/144019/8872


    Having read this article, I am immediately going to burn my copy
    of K&R, cease all programming in C and begin learning Pascal (or
    Visual Basic). I feel violated.
    Elliot Marks, Feb 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Mantorok Redgormor

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <7usXb.6285$> August Derleth <> writes:

    >Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >>
    >> I suppose that's what Kernighan gets for denigrating Pascal in the
    >> elder days.

    >
    >bwk didn't denigrate Pascal. He tried to rewrite a suite of programs
    >(the Software Tools) in Pascal, gave up, and wrote an article detailing
    >the features of Pascal that made him give up. While the article is often
    >held up as a comparison between C and Pascal, it isn't.


    Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that Kernighan tried to port The
    Software Tools from FORTRAN to Pascal, not from C.

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
    Dan Pop, Feb 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Mantorok Redgormor

    Alan Balmer Guest

    On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:59:36 -0700, August Derleth <>
    wrote:

    >bwk didn't denigrate Pascal. He tried to rewrite a suite of programs
    >(the Software Tools) in Pascal, gave up, and wrote an article detailing
    >the features of Pascal that made him give up. While the article is often
    >held up as a comparison between C and Pascal, it isn't.


    Gave up? I had a copy (long since disappeared) of "Software Tools in
    Pascal" by Kernighan and Plauger.

    The original wasn't C, of course, but Fortran. Ratfor, actually, which
    I implemented from the book on the Varian Data Machines Vortex system.

    --
    Al Balmer
    Balmer Consulting
    Alan Balmer, Feb 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Mantorok Redgormor

    Les Cargill Guest

    Dan Pop wrote:
    >
    > In <7usXb.6285$> August Derleth <> writes:
    >
    > >Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    > >>
    > >> I suppose that's what Kernighan gets for denigrating Pascal in the
    > >> elder days.

    > >
    > >bwk didn't denigrate Pascal. He tried to rewrite a suite of programs
    > >(the Software Tools) in Pascal, gave up, and wrote an article detailing
    > >the features of Pascal that made him give up. While the article is often
    > >held up as a comparison between C and Pascal, it isn't.

    >
    > Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that Kernighan tried to port The
    > Software Tools from FORTRAN to Pascal, not from C.
    >


    Then what's the book "Software Tools In Pascal" doing in my bookshelf
    :)?
    And it was RATFOR, not Fortran, SFAIK.


    > Dan
    > --
    > Dan Pop
    > DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    > Email:



    --
    Les Cargill
    Les Cargill, Feb 17, 2004
    #10
  11. Mantorok Redgormor

    CBFalconer Guest

    Dan Pop wrote:
    > August Derleth <> writes:
    > >Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    > >>
    > >> I suppose that's what Kernighan gets for denigrating Pascal in
    > >> the elder days.

    > >
    > > bwk didn't denigrate Pascal. He tried to rewrite a suite of
    > > programs (the Software Tools) in Pascal, gave up, and wrote an
    > > article detailing the features of Pascal that made him give up.
    > > While the article is often held up as a comparison between C and
    > > Pascal, it isn't.

    >
    > Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that Kernighan tried to port
    > The Software Tools from FORTRAN to Pascal, not from C.


    If you spell FORTRAN as Ratfor. Looks much closer to C than to
    Fortran.

    --
    Chuck F () ()
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
    CBFalconer, Feb 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Mantorok Redgormor

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <> CBFalconer <> writes:

    >Dan Pop wrote:
    >> August Derleth <> writes:
    >> >Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> I suppose that's what Kernighan gets for denigrating Pascal in
    >> >> the elder days.
    >> >
    >> > bwk didn't denigrate Pascal. He tried to rewrite a suite of
    >> > programs (the Software Tools) in Pascal, gave up, and wrote an
    >> > article detailing the features of Pascal that made him give up.
    >> > While the article is often held up as a comparison between C and
    >> > Pascal, it isn't.

    >>
    >> Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that Kernighan tried to port
    >> The Software Tools from FORTRAN to Pascal, not from C.

    >
    >If you spell FORTRAN as Ratfor. Looks much closer to C than to
    >Fortran.


    It was, nevertheless, a FORTRAN preprocessor (or front end, if you like).

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
    Dan Pop, Feb 17, 2004
    #12
    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. Oleg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    726
    Francisco Rodriguez
    Feb 18, 2004
  2. Binary

    VHDL propagation time

    Binary, Dec 12, 2005, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    774
  3. JMUApache
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,301
    Brendan Reynolds
    Sep 4, 2005
  4. Roedy Green

    JavaDoc propagation

    Roedy Green, Jul 4, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    344
    Roedy Green
    Jul 4, 2005
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    392
    E.J. Pitt
    Aug 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page