Pedants

A

Antoninus Twink

This group is about C, not every- thing that was ever written in some
dialect resembling C.

So say you. If you want a group where you can enforce topicality, set up
a moderated group - comp.lang.c.heathfields-whims or whatever. Each
poster to this group can decide for himself what he wants to post and
within what bounds of topicality.
With your "we discuss everything here that ever was written in
anything that somehow resembles C" approach you try to kill exactly
what makes clc worth reading. If you would get away with it it would
become another completely useless place where it's impossible to get
relevant informations and where the people that actually know their
stuff leave in disgust.

I don't accept this analysis. I think it's more likely that experts stop
by clc, get turned off by the stupid bickering and pedantry, and take
their knowledge elsewhere. I can't see how it would be a bad thing for
the atmosphere to become more open and frank.
But whom I am telling this. Someone who seems to write at least 20 to
30 poests a day (with a record at over 50 a day over a months period)
for sure wont have time for thinking.

You're out by an order of magnitude.

By far the most prolific posters to this group are Heathfield, Thomson
and CBF. One of these is machine-like, and the other two do indeed have
a habit of firing on all cylinders without thinking properly, or indeed
reading the question at all.
Consider yourself finally plonked together with the other two
assholes.

Capital idea. See, it's not so hard, is it? Plonk me, plonk any threads
that you consider "off topic, not portable, blah blah", and then you
won't have to get het up about things, and you can go along happily
reading posts about the abstract machine, and the rest of us can enjoy
the posts about the real world too. Everyone's problems are solved.

I wish you could convince the other regulars of the merits of such a
live-and-let-live approach: they can't resist turning every "off topic"
thread into a flame war.
 
S

santosh

Richard said:
jacob navia said:


Only to people who need a C compiler. For people who need lcc-win32,
lcc-win32 is exactly what they need, and no doubt there are such
people.

If you disagree with my suggestion that lcc-win32 is not a C compiler,
to what C standard do you claim conformance? K&R C? C90? C99?

So by your own logic Turbo C version 2.1 (distributed for free by
Borland in recent years and seemingly quite popular with beginners) is
not a C compiler?
:)

<snip>
 
S

santosh

jacob said:
Those aren't bug reports. The regulars insisted in their stupid
pedantic stuff and I added a flag to please them.

Oh, you added "pedantic" please the "regulars" of clc? Strange. When was
this? And what does "pedantic" do that "ansic" will not do? Does it
behave (or I guess, used to behave) similarly to gcc's pedantic flag?
Instead of filing a bug report, they laugh at me with their
"new to c" posts:

There is a possibility that these anonymous posters of win-lcc problems
do have a malicious motive. If they do, you however are feeding right
from their hand by getting so worked up about their posts. Regardless
of their intent you should only address the content of their posts. If
there is a genuine bug then the best response, IMHO, is to say you will
look into it at the earliest.
What happens? Am I doing something wrong?

Yes, you are IMHO, tarnishing your own reputation. Remember
these "anonymous" posters can say anything precisely because of their
anonymity, but you would be well advised to overlook their possible
motive and only address the technical content of their posts.

<snip>
 
S

santosh

santosh said:
So by your own logic Turbo C version 2.1 (distributed for free by
Borland in recent years and seemingly quite popular with beginners) is
not a C compiler?
:)

<snip>

And BTW, correct me if I'm wrong but "K&R C" isn't exactly a standard
right?
 
E

Erwin Lindemann

Ben said:
Dear Jacob


What is the -pedantic flag? As far as I can see you don't document
the use of it.

Not wanting to pour more oil into this, but the '-pedantic' option was
advertised in September 2006 in a thread called 'New -pedantic option
for lcc-win32', cross-posted to comp.lang.c and comp.compilers.lcc .
It's also mentioned in 'readme.txt'.

From the announcement:

| This flag will make
|
| _stdcall
|
| no longer a recognized part of the language.
|
| Anonymous structures will not be accepted either.

If I remember correctly, it broke compilation of <math.h>, and one or
two other standard headers relying on '_stdcall' being a keyword,
right then.

But: from reading the announcement, for some reason I was always under
the impression this option was never really intended to be used. Plus,
it appears to have a different meaning now.


Thanks
 
B

Ben Bacarisse

Erwin Lindemann said:
Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Not wanting to pour more oil into this, but the '-pedantic' option was
advertised in September 2006 in a thread called 'New -pedantic option
for lcc-win32', cross-posted to comp.lang.c and comp.compilers.lcc .
It's also mentioned in 'readme.txt'.

Ah. I missed that. To check (before I posted) I looked in the help
file, not the readme. I note that the readme just mentions it -- it
does not say what it does.
From the announcement:
<snip description>

OK, it was once intended to have a use but things have moved on now
since it no longer supported with that meaning.

That seems a shame. I find strict checking by a compiler quite useful
but Jacob is entitled to move lcc-win32 in whatever direction he
thinks best.
 
S

Serve Lau

Erwin Lindemann said:
If I remember correctly, it broke compilation of <math.h>, and one or
two other standard headers relying on '_stdcall' being a keyword,
right then.

ye why not do the same as gcc jacob? Add a pragma to lcc so the compiler
knows its compiling a system header and you ignore the pedantic flag then.
 
J

Joachim Schmitz

BTW: AT meanwhile showed 2 examples of reasonable answer of your, so I stand
corrected here.
Those aren't bug reports. The regulars insisted in their stupid
pedantic stuff and I added a flag to please them.
Aha, so you added it? So you added a bug, as it doesn't work but craps out
on perfectly legal C code.
Instead of filing a bug report, they laugh at me with their
"new to c" posts:
I don't laugh at you nor your programs, I do laugh at your behavoir though.
If the post of 'new to c' annoys you, just ignore it. Or, much better, just
reply with admitting an oversight and that this -pedantic switch is no
longer supported and has just been forgotten to be taken out your code.
What happens? Am I doing something wrong?
Yes. Attitute, behavoir
Then Heathfield starts saying that my compiler is useless, etc.
He didn't. He just claims it not to be a C-Compiler as it doesn't take
perfeclty valid
What have you done for the community Mr Schmitz?

Is there any program from you *I* can laugh at?
I do post here occasionally with attempts to help people. I do make mistakes
in doing so sometimes. I'm not unfailable and never claimed to be. So just
for example I quite frequently forget that things that work in POSIX are not
guaranteed to work in ISO C.
Regardless there's no reason to laugh at me or my post, just tell me where
I'm wrong and why.
No. Not even that. Nothing. Like your friend Heathfield.
I don't know him, so how could he be my friend? I just sometimes (and not
always, had my fights with him too) happen to agree with him (actually more
after than I don't).

Bye, Jojo
 
R

Richard

Richard Heathfield said:
jacob navia said:


Just because you don't understand me, that doesn't mean I have nothing to
say.


That's an implementation issue, and as such should be discussed in a
newsgroup where that implementation is topical, such as comp.compilers.lcc


Fine, but hardly topical here.


Not in comp.lang.c, no, where we discuss the language, not implementations
thereof. If you want to race compilers, please do it in a newsgroup where
it's topical.

But for the record, no, if the compiler *doesn't work*, it doesn't matter
how fast it is - same as with any program.


No, what counts is that it is an implementation, and therefore needs to be
discussed in a group where it is topical, rather than here, where we
discuss the language itself, not implementations thereof. I do not
expect

No "we" do not. YOU do. So please stay out of threads were we discuss
more real C issues.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.

Note that if we started calling Heathfield an "asshole" (as some of us
have been doing, at least privately, for years), it wouldn't be long
until he (Heathfield) would post the following:

Note that dictionary.com is non-normative.

In comp.lang.c, the word "asshole" tends to be used to describe someone who
cares about getting it right, by someone who doesn't.

The point being that, if you care to, _any_ insult can be "turned around".
 
J

jacob navia

Ralf said:

Because "here" there weren't any bug reports.

1) All "bugs" posted here were ironic stuff to show how bad
my compiler is. For instance somebody posted a "bug report"
when he defined a dprintf function. It is not intrinsically
bad, and the correction is easy, but the general tone is:
"I am a new user and I can't understand"
Then, Heathfield and co will jump in as if they weren't
involved:
"Of course, that is a horrible compiler", etc.

2) No problems whatsoever with *real* problems, bad code
generation, etc. The only "problems" are cosmetic.

PEDANTS like those bugs, they make an implicit assertion
about "book knowledge" as cited in dictionary.com when
consulting the definition of "pedant".

3) Use of undocumented flags (like -ansic89) that they gather
by looking into the executable of linux or whatever. Then,
Heathfield springs in and writes:
"That compiler doesn't conform to *any* standard"

Since most gcc headers will not compile with other
compilers I could post HUNDREDS of those bugs here,
just to show that gcc is "bad". Obviously I will not
do that, I am not a pedant.

This group is lacking most of a real discussion about issues
in software development. Any such discussions will be killed by this
people with their "off topic" stuff. Here, only THEY can discuss
anything that goes beyond

int main (void);

or printf directives, or students homework.

I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.

There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.

In that code I showed a software for developing general containers
with the example of a resizable array.

Nothing.

NONE of the people that now tell (in this same group)

"Jacob never posts source code"

This is a denigration campaign. And you have seen that, and apparently
you did not notice.
 
V

vippstar

Because "here" there weren't any bug reports.

1) All "bugs" posted here were ironic stuff to show how bad Just assumptions.
my compiler is. For instance somebody posted a "bug report"
when he defined a dprintf function. It is not intrinsically
bad, and the correction is easy, but the general tone is:
"I am a new user and I can't understand"
Then, Heathfield and co will jump in as if they weren't
involved:
"Of course, that is a horrible compiler", etc. Followed by accusations.
2) No problems whatsoever with *real* problems, bad code
generation, etc. The only "problems" are cosmetic.
The problems are real. It does seem like the bug reports are done on
purpose.
You seem to be suggesting that these bug reports are being done by mr
Heathfield himself, which I believe to be false.
I think it's just a troll finding all these "bugs" because the troll
knows you will get pissed about it, you will make a fuss about it and
a lot of noise will be generated.
3) Use of undocumented flags (like -ansic89) that they gather
by looking into the executable of linux or whatever. Then,
Heathfield springs in and writes:
"That compiler doesn't conform to *any* standard"
If the flag is undocumented, it's not a bug whatever it does.
Since most gcc headers will not compile with other
compilers I could post HUNDREDS of those bugs here,
just to show that gcc is "bad". Obviously I will not
do that, I am not a pedant.
That's nonsense, it has nothing to do with your compilers bugs. The
implementations headers need not to be compilable by other
implementations AFAIK. In fact the standard headers need not to be
real files, so they don't need to be shared among compilers/
implementations.
This group is lacking most of a real discussion about issues
in software development. Any such discussions will be killed by this
people with their "off topic" stuff. Here, only THEY can discuss
anything that goes beyond
Why are you constantly failing to understand how usenet works?
If group A has subject A, you talk ONLY about A. If you want to talk
about B, you go to group B. Is it *that* hard to understand?
Every morning you wake up, look at my post, read these lines. Repeat
until you've understood why 'software development issues' are off-
topic.
int main (void);

or printf directives, or students homework.
That's a lie, here you can discuss ANSI/ISO C and perhaps C's history
without being off-topic.
I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.

There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.
Because it was off-topic, or because noone is obliged to reply to a
specific article on usenet.
This is a denigration campaign. And you have seen that, and apparently
you did not notice.
You're paranoid and trolls like that.
 
A

Antoninus Twink

As I've just been made aware of you're cheating! These ain't posts to
comp.lang.c.

So rather than admit that you've slandered Jacob, you prefer to change
the problem specification. I've worked for people like you before.

Here's what you said:

No mention of /where/ you want to see Jacob having been polite. But in
any case, I already provided an example of Jacob's patience under
extreme duress in clc (the "Eddie" thread), and there are many others -
if you care then do your own damn research instead of moving the
goalposts.
 
A

Antoninus Twink

That's a lie, here you can discuss ANSI/ISO C and perhaps C's history
without being off-topic.

Wow, that's really magnanimous of you! But guess what? You don't own
this group, and its participants can discuss *whatever the hell they
personally judge to be appropriate in it*, with or without your
condescending say-so.
Because it was off-topic, or because noone is obliged to reply to a
specific article on usenet.

I've heard it all now - a program in standard C is off-topic simply by
dint of the fact that it was posted by Jacob Navia. You need to get your
head examined.
You're paranoid and trolls like that.

There's no paranoia here - he's just drawing the conclusion that any
reasonable person would from Heathfield's behavior over many months.
 
A

Antoninus Twink

jacob said:
[...]
I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.

There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.

I don't recall seeing it, but I've seen a lot of things I
don't recall. Perhaps I saw it and thought "Good job, Jacob;
nothing I can add."

Call my a cynic, but I find it hard to imagine you have a positive
thought about something written by Jacob.

This may be what Jacob is referring to:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/6e5fdc8dd450d69e/ee859343d91c5e8e

Saying there were no comment is a /slight/ exaggeration, but the silence
from the "regulars" is deafening.
A search for that phrase on groups.google.com turns up

Your search - "Jacob never posts source code" - did
not match any documents.

I know it's been a long two days, but try stretching your memory back to
earlier in this very thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/3cf5e4b855819f29
 
J

jacob navia

Antoninus said:
jacob said:
[...]
I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.

There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.
I don't recall seeing it, but I've seen a lot of things I
don't recall. Perhaps I saw it and thought "Good job, Jacob;
nothing I can add."

Call my a cynic, but I find it hard to imagine you have a positive
thought about something written by Jacob.

This may be what Jacob is referring to:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/6e5fdc8dd450d69e/ee859343d91c5e8e

Saying there were no comment is a /slight/ exaggeration, but the silence
from the "regulars" is deafening.
A search for that phrase on groups.google.com turns up

Your search - "Jacob never posts source code" - did
not match any documents.

I know it's been a long two days, but try stretching your memory back to
earlier in this very thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/3cf5e4b855819f29


Thanks.

I remembered that it took me quite a lot of effort to adapt the code,
add comments, etc etc. It is a general string collection container.


Not A SINGLE ANSWER from any "regulars". Not a single word.
The only answers were from Charlie Gordon and Roland Pilbinger.

Heathfield, Sossman, etc, lept silent.

THEN

"jacob doesn't post source code"

And then

"Jacob is paranoic"
 
V

vippstar

Antoninus said:
jacob navia wrote:
[...]
I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.
There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.
I don't recall seeing it, but I've seen a lot of things I
don't recall. Perhaps I saw it and thought "Good job, Jacob;
nothing I can add."
Call my a cynic, but I find it hard to imagine you have a positive
thought about something written by Jacob.
Saying there were no comment is a /slight/ exaggeration, but the silence
from the "regulars" is deafening.
I know it's been a long two days, but try stretching your memory back to
earlier in this very thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/3cf5e4b855819f29

Thanks.
Please don't reply to trolls.
<snip>
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top