Re: buffering of stdio streams

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Michael Wojcik, Aug 8, 2004.

  1. In article , SM Ryan <> writes:
    >
    > You're dealing with an obnoxious clique which tries like hell to moderate
    > an unmoderated newsgroup.


    Poor baby.

    > This way they can post their off topic messages unimpeded.


    The c.l.c regulars keeping you down?

    > Contrary to their insistence, this is group is not strictly about ANS C;


    Since there is no charter for comp.lang.c, what this group "is about"
    is not well-defined; consequently, your claim is no stronger than
    anyone else's claim that c.l.c is "strictly about [ISO] C". And in
    fact there are at least two strong arguments against your claim:

    1) There is only one official, widely-recognized definition of what
    the "C programming language" is, and that is the ISO standard. The
    group's name is "comp.lang.c"; the implication is that it exists for
    discussing C, which by definition means ISO C.

    2) Prevalent opinion of the group regulars appears to be against you.
    The group regulars are both the major contributors to discussion
    here, and the major audience segment to express an opinion on group
    content, so it might be posited that they have a natural right to
    determine what constitutes appropriate content. (It may be worth
    pointing out that such a natural right is generally observed in other
    social situations.)

    > this whinging about off-topic posts started about seven years
    > ago


    An utter fabrication. A simple Google search amply demonstrates that
    concerns about topicality were prominent in c.l.c much earlier than
    seven years ago.

    > and destroyed a previously valuable resource about C programming.


    Yet many of us still find it such a valuable resource. Perhaps the
    problem is with you.

    --
    Michael Wojcik

    "Well, we're not getting a girl," said Marilla, as if poisoning wells were
    a purely feminine accomplishment and not to be dreaded in the case of a boy.
    -- L. M. Montgomery
     
    Michael Wojcik, Aug 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 8 Aug 2004, Michael Wojcik wrote:

    > In article , SM Ryan <> writes:
    >> this whinging about off-topic posts started about seven years
    >> ago

    >
    > An utter fabrication. A simple Google search amply demonstrates that
    > concerns about topicality were prominent in c.l.c much earlier than
    > seven years ago.


    A more complex Google search ("off topic") gives:

    1981-1992: 12 posts containing the term "off topic"
    1993: 16 "
    1994: 119 "
    1995: 281 "
    1996: 650 "
    1997: 1,430 "
    1998: 1,420 "
    1999: 2,390 "
    2000: 3,220 "
    2001: 3,030 "
    2002: 2,320 "
    2003: 2,140 "
    2004: >1,650 "

    As you can see, Ryan's ``about seven years ago'' is not
    ``an utter fabrication'' as you would like us to believe. While
    the late 1993 thread titled ``how about self-moderation for clc''
    could have been the root cause for all this, the real problem
    does not begin until 1996, when OT-bashing has slowly become the
    /modus operandi/ of c.l.c.

    Tak-Shing
     
    Tak-Shing Thomas Chan, Aug 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Michael Wojcik

    CBFalconer Guest

    Tak-Shing Thomas Chan wrote:
    > On 8 Aug 2004, Michael Wojcik wrote:
    >> SM Ryan <> writes:

    >
    >>> this whinging about off-topic posts started about seven years
    >>> ago

    >>
    >> An utter fabrication. A simple Google search amply demonstrates
    >> that concerns about topicality were prominent in c.l.c much earlier
    >> than seven years ago.

    >
    > A more complex Google search ("off topic") gives:
    >
    > 1981-1992: 12 posts containing the term "off topic"
    > 1993: 16 "
    > 1994: 119 "
    > 1995: 281 "
    > 1996: 650 "
    > 1997: 1,430 "
    > 1998: 1,420 "
    > 1999: 2,390 "
    > 2000: 3,220 "
    > 2001: 3,030 "
    > 2002: 2,320 "
    > 2003: 2,140 "
    > 2004: >1,650 "
    >
    > As you can see, Ryan's ``about seven years ago'' is not
    > ``an utter fabrication'' as you would like us to believe.
    > While the late 1993 thread titled ``how about self-moderation
    > for clc'' could have been the root cause for all this, the
    > real problem does not begin until 1996, when OT-bashing has
    > slowly become the /modus operandi/ of c.l.c.


    There is another possible explanation for those statistics. I
    believe 1997 is the first year deja-vue kept a full archive (deja
    sold out to google, and supplied the archive, somewhere around
    2000). Previous years are the result of incorporating various
    collections, and are not necessarily complete. Topicality hues
    and cries are almost the most likely to be edited out.

    --
    "Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
    as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
    "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
    - Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
     
    CBFalconer, Aug 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Michael Wojcik

    Alan Balmer Guest

    On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:53:20 +0100, Tak-Shing Thomas Chan
    <> wrote:

    >
    > A more complex Google search ("off topic") gives:
    >
    >1981-1992: 12 posts containing the term "off topic"
    > 1993: 16 "
    > 1994: 119 "
    > 1995: 281 "


    These statistics are not meaningful to the question without supporting
    information - one obvious bit being the total traffic.

    --
    Al Balmer
    Balmer Consulting
     
    Alan Balmer, Aug 9, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0408090713310.23069-100000@swindon>, Tak-Shing Thomas Chan <> writes:
    > On 8 Aug 2004, Michael Wojcik wrote:
    >
    > > In article , SM Ryan <> writes:
    > >> this whinging about off-topic posts started about seven years
    > >> ago

    > >
    > > An utter fabrication. A simple Google search amply demonstrates that
    > > concerns about topicality were prominent in c.l.c much earlier than
    > > seven years ago.

    >
    > A more complex Google search ("off topic") gives:
    >
    > [some not particularly meaningful results]
    >
    > As you can see, Ryan's ``about seven years ago'' is not
    > ``an utter fabrication'' as you would like us to believe.


    No, I don't see that.

    > While
    > the late 1993 thread titled ``how about self-moderation for clc''
    > could have been the root cause for all this, the real problem
    > does not begin until 1996, when OT-bashing has slowly become the
    > /modus operandi/ of c.l.c.


    Since you have failed to demonstrate that 1) Google's archives for
    the period prior to 1997 are comprehensive or even representative,
    and 2) what the ratio of posts discussing topicality is to total
    traffic for the years given, these statistics show nothing of the
    sort.

    Further, my claim was that "concerns about topicality were prominent"
    in the period prior to 1997. Obviously, prominence is a subjective
    evaluation (which indeed arguably renders your critique moot), but
    I think the 650 relevant posts your search found justify it. Whether
    they constitute "the real problem" is a matter for you to decide; I
    don't believe there is such a thing, so I'm not trying to determine
    when it "began". Ryan claimed that "whinging about off-topic posts
    started about seven years ago", and that is not true, except perhaps
    for very careful definitions of "whinging".

    (I might also note that a Google search for the phrase "off topic"
    excludes the posts where it's written only as a single word, which
    are rarer but extant, but since using Google's archives to attempt
    to prove a negative - the absence of significant topicality posts -
    is already doomed to failure, I wouldn't worry about it.)

    --
    Michael Wojcik

    Pseudoscientific Nonsense Quote o' the Day:
    From the scientific standpoint, until these energies are directly
    sensed by the evolving perceptions of the individual, via the right
    brain, inner-conscious, intuitive faculties, scientists will never
    grasp the true workings of the universe's ubiquitous computer system.
    -- Noel Huntley
     
    Michael Wojcik, Aug 10, 2004
    #5
  6. On 10 Aug 2004, Michael Wojcik wrote:

    > In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0408090713310.23069-100000@swindon>, Tak-Shing Thomas Chan <> writes:
    > > As you can see, Ryan's ``about seven years ago'' is not
    > > ``an utter fabrication'' as you would like us to believe.

    >
    > No, I don't see that.


    Ryan said ``about seven years ago''. As the definition of
    aboutness is subjective, it is inherently unfalsifiable and
    therefore one cannot prove that it is ``an utter fabrication''.

    >> While
    >> the late 1993 thread titled ``how about self-moderation for clc''
    >> could have been the root cause for all this, the real problem
    >> does not begin until 1996, when OT-bashing has slowly become the
    >> /modus operandi/ of c.l.c.

    >
    > Since you have failed to demonstrate that 1) Google's archives for
    > the period prior to 1997 are comprehensive or even representative,
    > and 2) what the ratio of posts discussing topicality is to total
    > traffic for the years given, these statistics show nothing of the
    > sort.


    DejaNews started in 1995 (not 1997). As for the ratio:

    (OT) "off topic" OR OT OR offtopic group:comp.lang.c
    1 Jan XXXX - 31 Dec YYYY Advanced Groups Search

    (All) comp.lang.c group:comp.lang.c
    1 Jan XXXX - 31 Dec YYYY Advanced Groups Search

    XXXX YYYY (OT) (All) Ratio
    ===============================================
    1981-1992: 45 in about 12,400 (approx 0.4%)
    1993-1993: 26 in about 12,600 (approx 0.2%)
    1994-1994: 139 in about 13,000 (approx 1.1%)
    1995-1995: 335 in about 13,600 (approx 2.5%)
    1996-1996: 736 in about 14,800 (approx 5.0%)
    1997-1997: 1,560 in about 16,700 (approx 9.3%)
    1998-1998: 1,550 in about 19,300 (approx 8.0%)
    1999-1999: 3,030 in about 24,700 (approx 12%)
    2000-2000: 5,620 in about 37,200 (approx 15%)
    2001-2001: 6,730 in about 68,200 (approx 9.9%)
    2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
    2003-2003: 4,860 in about 9,880 (approx 49%)
    2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)

    Feel free to replicate the search and point out any errors.

    > Further, my claim was that "concerns about topicality were prominent"
    > in the period prior to 1997. Obviously, prominence is a subjective
    > evaluation (which indeed arguably renders your critique moot), but
    > I think the 650 relevant posts your search found justify it. Whether
    > they constitute "the real problem" is a matter for you to decide; I
    > don't believe there is such a thing, so I'm not trying to determine
    > when it "began". Ryan claimed that "whinging about off-topic posts
    > started about seven years ago", and that is not true, except perhaps
    > for very careful definitions of "whinging".


    Or very careful definitions of ``about seven''.

    > (I might also note that a Google search for the phrase "off topic"
    > excludes the posts where it's written only as a single word, which


    Fixed above.

    > are rarer but extant, but since using Google's archives to attempt
    > to prove a negative - the absence of significant topicality posts -
    > is already doomed to failure, I wouldn't worry about it.)


    This is not what I am trying to prove. In any case, there
    are stuffs like X-No-Archive, cancellations and cross-posts, all
    of which will skew the results. I think a better way is to ask
    Dennis Ritchie, Henry Spencer, Andrew Koenig, Doug Gwyn, Chris
    Torek, Steve Summit, and other people for a subjective answer.

    Tak-Shing
     
    Tak-Shing Chan, Aug 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Tak-Shing Chan wrote on 10/08/04 :

    > 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
    > 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)


    These figures seems to be nuts.

    --
    Emmanuel
    The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html

    "C is a sharp tool"
     
    Emmanuel Delahaye, Aug 10, 2004
    #7
  8. On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:

    > Tak-Shing Chan wrote on 10/08/04 :
    >
    >> 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
    >> 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)

    >
    > These figures seems to be nuts.


    I repeated the searches and the results did not change:

    Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 485,000 from 1 Jan 2002 to 31 Dec
    2002 for "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.46 seconds)

    Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 90,800 from 1 Jan 2004 to today for
    "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.10 seconds)

    Tak-Shing
     
    Tak-Shing Chan, Aug 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Michael Wojcik

    -berlin.de Guest

    Tak-Shing Chan <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:


    <inserted the whole set of numbers Tak-Shing Chan posted)

    >> 1981-1992: 45 in about 12,400 (approx 0.4%)
    >> 1993-1993: 26 in about 12,600 (approx 0.2%)
    >> 1994-1994: 139 in about 13,000 (approx 1.1%)
    >> 1995-1995: 335 in about 13,600 (approx 2.5%)
    >> 1996-1996: 736 in about 14,800 (approx 5.0%)
    >> 1997-1997: 1,560 in about 16,700 (approx 9.3%)
    >> 1998-1998: 1,550 in about 19,300 (approx 8.0%)
    >> 1999-1999: 3,030 in about 24,700 (approx 12%)
    >> 2000-2000: 5,620 in about 37,200 (approx 15%)
    >> 2001-2001: 6,730 in about 68,200 (approx 9.9%)
    >> 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
    >> 2003-2003: 4,860 in about 9,880 (approx 49%)
    >> 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)
    >>
    >> These figures seems to be nuts.


    > I repeated the searches and the results did not change:


    But if you look at the numbers you can easily see that there
    must be some mistake - or do you really believe the number
    of posts here jumped by a factor of about 7 from 2002 to 2003
    (that would be twice as many as had been posted in all years
    before taken together!) and then again dropped by a factor of
    50 in the following year? When you leave out these rather
    obviously bogus data points you see that the number of posts
    increased quite a bit (with a strong increase in slope in the
    last 7 years)- and it's to be expected that (especially since
    many of the people stumbling over the existence of newsgroups
    nowadays never have heard of netiquette) to see a corresponding
    increase in off-topic posts.

    Regards, Jens
    --
    \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ -berlin.de
    \__________________________ http://www.toerring.de
     
    -berlin.de, Aug 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Michael Wojcik

    Alan Balmer Guest

    On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:10:33 +0200, Emmanuel Delahaye
    <> wrote:

    >Tak-Shing Chan wrote on 10/08/04 :
    >
    >> 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
    >> 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)

    >
    >These figures seems to be nuts.


    And this one even more so:
    >> 2003-2003: 4,860 in about 9,880 (approx 49%)


    --
    Al Balmer
    Balmer Consulting
     
    Alan Balmer, Aug 10, 2004
    #10
  11. Michael Wojcik

    CBFalconer Guest

    Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > XXXX YYYY (OT) (All) Ratio
    > ===============================================
    > 1981-1992: 45 in about 12,400 (approx 0.4%)
    > 1993-1993: 26 in about 12,600 (approx 0.2%)
    > 1994-1994: 139 in about 13,000 (approx 1.1%)
    > 1995-1995: 335 in about 13,600 (approx 2.5%)
    > 1996-1996: 736 in about 14,800 (approx 5.0%)
    > 1997-1997: 1,560 in about 16,700 (approx 9.3%)
    > 1998-1998: 1,550 in about 19,300 (approx 8.0%)
    > 1999-1999: 3,030 in about 24,700 (approx 12%)
    > 2000-2000: 5,620 in about 37,200 (approx 15%)
    > 2001-2001: 6,730 in about 68,200 (approx 9.9%)
    > 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
    > 2003-2003: 4,860 in about 9,880 (approx 49%)
    > 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)
    >
    > Feel free to replicate the search and point out any errors.


    I flat out don't believe your 2002 and 2003 numbers. 2001 and
    2004 are also suspect. These may be the result of spam
    annoyances.

    --
    "Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
    as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
    "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
    - Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
     
    CBFalconer, Aug 11, 2004
    #11
  12. Michael Wojcik

    CBFalconer Guest

    Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:
    >
    > > Tak-Shing Chan wrote on 10/08/04 :
    > >
    > >> 2002-2002: 5,930 in about 485,000 (approx 1.2%)
    > >> 2004-2004: 3,550 in about 90,800 (approx 3.9%)

    > >
    > > These figures seems to be nuts.

    >
    > I repeated the searches and the results did not change:
    >
    > Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 485,000 from 1 Jan 2002 to 31 Dec
    > 2002 for "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.46 seconds)
    >
    > Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 90,800 from 1 Jan 2004 to today for
    > "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.10 seconds)


    So examine the raw data, or at least a healthy sample of it.

    --
    "Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
    as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
    "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
    - Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
     
    CBFalconer, Aug 11, 2004
    #12
  13. On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, CBFalconer wrote:

    > Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
    >> I repeated the searches and the results did not change:
    >>
    >> Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 485,000 from 1 Jan 2002 to 31 Dec
    >> 2002 for "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.46 seconds)
    >>
    >> Groups Results 1 - 10 of about 90,800 from 1 Jan 2004 to today for
    >> "comp.lang.c" group:comp.lang.c. (0.10 seconds)

    >
    > So examine the raw data, or at least a healthy sample of it.


    That would be too expensive. Instead, I use a more reliable
    data source (http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/) to retrieve
    yearly posting statistics for comp.lang.c:

    Year of 1999: 29685 messages (starting September 1999)
    Year of 2000: 150337 messages
    Year of 2001: 161248 messages
    Year of 2002: 145586 messages
    Year of 2003: 120995 messages
    Year of 2004: 48575 messages (up to June 2004)

    There indeed seems to be something wrong with Google. I
    hereby retract from the percentages I posted.

    Nevertheless, evidence showed that Ryan is probably right: a
    random survey of comp.lang.c pre-1993 looks very different
    (OT-bashing-wise) from post-1995. Could someone who had been
    here since 1986 kindly comment on this issue?

    Tak-Shing
     
    Tak-Shing Chan, Aug 11, 2004
    #13
  14. On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, CBFalconer wrote:

    > I flat out don't believe your 2002 and 2003 numbers. 2001 and
    > 2004 are also suspect. These may be the result of spam
    > annoyances.


    Or possibly a Google bug.

    Tak-Shing
     
    Tak-Shing Chan, Aug 11, 2004
    #14
  15. On 10 Aug 2004 -berlin.de wrote:

    > But if you look at the numbers you can easily see that there
    > must be some mistake - or do you really believe the number
    > of posts here jumped by a factor of about 7 from 2002 to 2003
    > (that would be twice as many as had been posted in all years
    > before taken together!) and then again dropped by a factor of
    > 50 in the following year?


    You are right. I used MSR Netscan and it disagreed with the
    Google numbers.

    > When you leave out these rather
    > obviously bogus data points you see that the number of posts
    > increased quite a bit (with a strong increase in slope in the
    > last 7 years)- and it's to be expected that (especially since
    > many of the people stumbling over the existence of newsgroups
    > nowadays never have heard of netiquette) to see a corresponding
    > increase in off-topic posts.


    Since the numbers are unreliable, it could not support
    either side of the argument...

    Tak-Shing
     
    Tak-Shing Chan, Aug 11, 2004
    #15
    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. Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t

    How to disable stdio echoplex from java code (unix specific)?

    Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t, Jun 7, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
    Jun 7, 2005
  2. Vicent

    iostream or stdio

    Vicent, Aug 25, 2003, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,735
  3. paul calvert
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,168
  4. Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,916
    crazzybugger
    Oct 22, 2006
  5. Chris McDonald

    buffering of stdio streams

    Chris McDonald, Aug 6, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,195
Loading...

Share This Page