"Portable" C compilers?

[Keith Thompson]

Albert wrote:

[...] BTW, I've just found out
that Code::Blocks has been installed which has GCC and makes
creating and compiling single source files a lot easier than
Borland C++ Builder Version 6 (year 2002) Professional
(Unregistered).

Anything that has anything called "Code::Blocks" is not C, and is
thus off topic here. It may be C++, which has its own newsgroup.
C++ is a different language.

this from the man who's spent multiple posts explaining the
security features of DOS...

You do seem incapable of following a discussion. The point is that
CLI interfaces can be perfectly safe, and I even referred to an
illustration that does it. Since it was in another language
(assembly) and for a rare OS today (CP/M) I refrained from any
details, but announced where they could be found.

Chuck. You assumed (incorrectly, as it turns out) that "Code::Blocks"
must have nothing to do with C, and must therefore be off topic. And
yet you felt it necessary to discuss CP/M at some length. Even if
CP/M were relevant to the specific discussion, you can hardly claim
that it's topical for this newsgroup.

Why is Code::Blocks off topic, while CP/M is on topic?

 

[Old Wolf]

I wish I had a programming teacher.
BTW, I've just found out that Code::Blocks has been installed which has
GCC and makes creating and compiling single source files a lot easier
than Borland C++ Builder Version 6 (year 2002) Professional (Unregistered).

If "File > New > Console Wizard" is too difficult
for you then maybe you should give up programming.

BTW, if you have console access, you can invoke
that compiler on its own without invoking the IDE.

 

[Guest]

You do seem incapable of following a discussion.

irony meters throughout the galaxy melt down to pools of boiling slag.

This whole thread is off-topic. You are posting stuff about
the security of various proto-OSs which is obviously off-topic
to comp.lang.c. Not that I care particularly.

THEN you post that some obscure IDE is off-topic.

You don't see any contradiction here?

 The point is that
CLI interfaces can be perfectly safe,

this is so <emphatic term> obvious I don't know why anyone would
bother to say it.

 

[James Kuyper]

this is so <emphatic term> obvious I don't know why anyone would
bother to say it.

Richard Bos said: "... talk to your school's sysadmin, who will drum it
into your untenured head exactly why half-educated, immature twerps
should not be trusted with administrator accounts or even command line
access, ever ..."

That sounds inconsistent, at least to me, with the concept that "CLI
interfaces can be perfectly safe.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


Chuck. You assumed (incorrectly, as it turns out) that
"Code::Blocks" must have nothing to do with C, and must
therefore be off topic. And yet you felt it necessary to discuss
CP/M at some length. Even if CP/M were relevant to the specific
discussion, you can hardly claim that it's topical for this
newsgroup.

Once more, I did not discuss CP/M. I gave a reference to a system
that implements full CLI security on a CP/M system, for those
interested.

Why is Code::Blocks off topic, while CP/M is on topic?

Because, to the best of my knowledge, the syntax of C never allows
for the "::" construct.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson wrote: [...]

Why is Code::Blocks off topic, while CP/M is on topic?

Because, to the best of my knowledge, the syntax of C never allows
for the "::" construct.

Which is relevant only if Code::Blocks occurs in C source code.

Code::Blocks is the name of an IDE.

Sheesh.

 

[luser-ex-troll]

Keith Thompson wrote: [...]

Why is Code::Blocks off topic, while CP/M is on topic?

Because, to the best of my knowledge, the syntax of C never allows
for the "::" construct.

Which is relevant only if Code::Blocks occurs in C source code.

Code::Blocks is the name of an IDE.

Sheesh.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (e-mail address removed)  <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"

That reminds me of the MARKIV query language. After various sales, it
became known as Vision:Builder (just one
colon). Same old simulated punch cards!

lxt

 

[Phil Carmody]

Once more, I did not discuss CP/M. I gave a reference to a system
that implements full CLI security on a CP/M system, for those
interested.


Because, to the best of my knowledge, the syntax of C never allows
for the "::" construct.

I see no reason at all why two colons may not appear next to
each other in C

#define CHUCKS_WRONG ::
char chucks_definitely_wrong[] = "::"

Phil

 

[Guest]

Richard Bos said: "... talk to your school's sysadmin, who will drum it
into your untenured head exactly why half-educated, immature twerps
should not be trusted with administrator accounts or even command line
access, ever ..."

That sounds inconsistent, at least to me, with the concept that "CLI
interfaces can be perfectly safe.

I was more considering that CLI's could be written that were safe
(simply
don't provide any commands that do anything dangerous) rather than
claiming that any particular CLI coule be made safe.

I don't really see why GUIs are inherently safe and CLIs are not.

 

[James Kuyper]

CBFalconer wrote:
....

Because, to the best of my knowledge, the syntax of C never allows
for the "::" construct.

Not even as the name of a C++ IDE that can be used as a framework for
building C code that compiles with C compilers (including gcc)? See
<http://www.codeblocks.org/> for more details.

Would you care to cite a section of the C standard that prohibits the
use of software containing "::" in its name to edit C source code?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

CBFalconer wrote:
...

Not even as the name of a C++ IDE that can be used as a framework for
building C code that compiles with C compilers (including gcc)? See
<http://www.codeblocks.org/> for more details.

Would you care to cite a section of the C standard that prohibits the
use of software containing "::" in its name to edit C source code?

I would like a clarification from one of the regs or semi-regs (in which
category I place you, Jim K.) as to whether or not Chuck is still a reg.

Has he been officially cut free yet?
And, more specifically, what is his current status?

(Just remember: It's all about the clique)

 

[luser-ex-troll]

I would like a clarification from one of the regs or semi-regs (in which
category I place you, Jim K.) as to whether or not Chuck is still a reg.

Has he been officially cut free yet?
And, more specifically, what is his current status?

(Just remember: It's all about the clique)

It's becoming apparent that in the contraxion of "regular" to "reg" it
becomes overloaded with a sense of "regulator" which in the context of
usenet becomes associated with the sense of "moderator" issuing in
overtones of power and the inherent corruptibility of its seekers.

If a regular is only required to provide a sense of regularity, then,
um, they're not so bad.

 

[jameskuyper]

On Mar 20, 9:26 am, (e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack)
wrote: .... ....
It's becoming apparent that in the contraxion of "regular" to "reg" it
becomes overloaded with a sense of "regulator" which in the context of
usenet becomes associated with the sense of "moderator" issuing in
overtones of power and the inherent corruptibility of its seekers.

If a regular is only required to provide a sense of regularity, then,
um, they're not so bad.

The people who use the term "reg" on this newsgroup do not consider it
to apply to themselves. This also applies to most of the people who
use the term "regular", and to every person who uses "regular" to mean
anything other than "someone who posts to this newsgroup regularly".
The existence and membership of that group is therefore determined
entirely by people who consider themselves non-members. Therefore,
you'll have to ask those non-members what those terms means to them,
and in particular you'll have to ask them whether CBFalconer has lost
his membership. However, I don't believe that the term "regulator" has
any direct role to play in the etymology or connotations of the term
"reg".

There have been bizarrely paranoid claims that the "regulars" have
some weird moderator-like power to prevent people from posting
whatever they want to this newsgroup, the people who believe in the
existence of that power seem to resent bitterly the abuse of that
power. I've seen no evidence that anyone has ever been prevented from
posting anything here; quite the contrary, so I find the resentment
very difficult to understand. If there were in fact a clique with the
motives and powers that some of the users of the term ascribe to
"regulars", the people who use that term would be completely unable to
post any messages here.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

I was more considering that CLI's could be written that were safe
(simply don't provide any commands that do anything dangerous)
rather than claiming that any particular CLI coule be made safe.

I don't really see why GUIs are inherently safe and CLIs are not.

Which is simply the question I answered earlier, with an example of
a system that did it. It resulted in all sorts of silly
objections.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

....

There have been bizarrely paranoid claims that the "regulars" have
some weird moderator-like power to prevent people from posting
whatever they want to this newsgroup, the people who believe in the
existence of that power seem to resent bitterly the abuse of that
power. I've seen no evidence that anyone has ever been prevented from
posting anything here; quite the contrary, so I find the resentment
very difficult to understand. If there were in fact a clique with the
motives and powers that some of the users of the term ascribe to
"regulars", the people who use that term would be completely unable to
post any messages here.

Um, get a grip. No one believes that this is a moderated group, or that
the regs have any supernatural powers.

What we do believe is that they have an obscurely academic and
out-of-touch-with-reality definition of C and that, through a process of
intimidation (mostly enforced by the likes of Ambuhl and McIntyre), as
well as threats of withholding of favors ("If you talk to trolls, you'll
get no help from me"), they have managed, until recently at any rate, to
keep this newsgroup devoid of any real content.

They have also defined topicality in such a way that, other than
language-lawyer sophistry, nothing (and I do mean that literally) is
actually on-topic.

But yet, somehow, CP/M and dirty laundry are on-topic. Strange, that.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I haven't seen any such claims. On the contrary, the claims I've seen
have been along the lines that the "regulars" *don't* have some weird
moderator-like power to prevent people from posting whatever they want
to this newsgroup.

It would help your case to present some evidence of people making
the paranoid claims you say have been made. If you don't present any
evidence within the next few days, we can safely assume you didn't
find any.

Kuyper is obviously way out of his league here.

As I point out in my other post, obviously anyone can post whatever they
like here - and the group is better for it. But, and this is the other
side of it, it *is* true that, until recently, the regs were able to
exert control over the content of the group, by threats and intimidation
of those who post "off topic" (according to their lights).

 

[Richard Bos]

You are obviously too young and inexperienced to remember CP/M and
even MSDOS, which were purely command line driven systems.

You are obviously too old and senile to imagine someone younger than 70
working on a command line, but you are even more wrong than usual.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Because, to the best of my knowledge, the syntax of C never allows
for the "::" construct.

Chuckie, you are hereby officially notified that you're a bloody idiot,
and should stop talking about things you know ****-all about.

Do a Cthulhudamned web search, if you don't know what something is,
before you shoot your crappy mouth off next time.

And no, I will _not_ tone that down, you moron. You're really going too
far in your insulting stupidity, this time.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Richard Bos said: "... talk to your school's sysadmin, who will drum it
into your untenured head exactly why half-educated, immature twerps
should not be trusted with administrator accounts or even command line
access, ever ..."

That sounds inconsistent, at least to me, with the concept that "CLI
interfaces can be perfectly safe.

Not really. What it boils down to is that a useable, manageable,
controllable network, in a more-than-a-couple-of-dozens-of-users
environment, where the average user has access to that CLI, cannot be
perfectly safe. This is rather more specific than simple-minded binary
comparisons of CLIs versus GUIs.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Oh, Kenny! You're _really_ back! Were you ill, all this time?

Richard