The C FAQ

[Keith Thompson]

Look in this group:

Any change to C is perceived as a threat. The overwhelming reaction
to a proposal of getting rid of MSDOS in the FAQ proves beyond
any doubt where those people are living.

Just what reaction are you referring to?

I agree that the MSDOS material in the FAQ is largely obsolete.
I think it's of historical interest, so I wouldn't want it deleted
altogether, but it could be moved to an archive section. And some,
but not all, of it could be made relevant just by tweaking a few
numbers. (There's plenty of room on the web; keeping the MSDOS
material doesn't mean there's less space for other information.)

I think most of the negative reaction was to your claim that
MSDOS is dead. That's just not true. It's *mostly* dead,
and has been almost entirely superseded by other things,
but it's still in use here and there.

This kind of thing seems to happen a lot. You make a basically
reasonable proposal, one that could trigger an interesting
discussion, but you combine it with an over-the-top claim that's easy
to refute. Naturally, people jump on the over-the-top claim because
it's easy, and your reasonable proposal gets lost in the noise.

For our purposes, it doesn't really matter whether MSDOS is
completely dead or just mostly dead. You're right, MSDOS gets too
much emphasis in the FAQ. You didn't need to make the false claim
that it's dead to support that.

That is why I am so despised in this group, now it is at least
clearer. I want to change stuff, and I try to project myself into
the future, and (worst) I even speak about the future of C.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't despise you. I do find
you annoying at times, especially when you make claims about other
people's motivations and get them so spectactularly wrong.

Everybody (with a few exceptions) sees C as a thing of the past,
joined by a few nostalgic old C programmers that live in 1989,
with MSDOS and Turboc.

The fact that those times were TWENTY years ago doesn't bother them.

They want to STAY there, in their untouched glorious past.

Nope.

 

[Seebs]

That's not so useful. The only people who discuss topicality per se
are those who
a) think topicality is topical
b) find topicality discussions interesting.

You have a point, there.

There's a tension between wanting to get the opinions of people who at
least comprehend the issue, and wanting to get the opinions of people who
aren't fanatical.

-s

 

[Seebs]

Would "we" be you and your tapeworm, or you and people who agree
with you? I certainly don't agree, and I also have been using
Usenet well before the great renaming.

Huh! Well, that's interesting. Maybe we need a poll.

I know that the first time I posted a system-specific question to clc, I
got a very polite note letting me know I would need a system-specific group,
and also an explanation of why.

.... via email, I think. Interesting.

-s

 

[jacob navia]

Dennis K a écrit :

The Pharoah's are all dead, but we still treasure their mummified bodies.

Yes. You, and all "regs" here, still treasure the mummified body of
MSDOS.

The catastrophic impression that a FAQ fulll of MSDOS references makes
in people reading it ("Wow, this document is at least 20 years old,
how can I trust what it says?") doesn't matter to you since you
(and your friends) are more interested in treasuring mummified bodies
than in actually keep current with the transformation of the data processing
industry since MSDOS.

From all the things I objected you picked up (like all your friends)
the one you love the most:

MSDOS.

As some people age, they are more and more unable to realize that
they aren't living in their youth, that things change and must be changed.

They prefer to relive the good old days of their past. Your reaction (and
the reaction of your frieds) shows where you are living.

The 1989 standard, Turboc (that will be still recommended) and MSDOS.

"Those were the days, my friend
They will never come back again..."

I can't help you. I just hope that I will avoid becoming like you
in the future.

 

[Nick Keighley]

{} instead of {0}? Yeah, that's a big change.



Anyone who sees the MSDOS stuff in the FAQ is going to wonder how old,
out-of-date, irrelevant and unreliable the rest of it is going to be.

The C FAQ is obviously just a static file, but if it was a dynamic resource,
the MSDOS queries would have long vanished into the archive section.

try reviving the clc wiki? (it seemed pretty moribund last time I
looked).

 

[santosh]

Dennis K a �crit :

Yes. You, and all "regs" here, still treasure the mummified body of
MSDOS.

The catastrophic impression that a FAQ fulll of MSDOS references makes
in people reading it ("Wow, this document is at least 20 years old,
how can I trust what it says?") doesn't matter to you since you
(and your friends) are more interested in treasuring mummified bodies
than in actually keep current with the transformation of the data processing
industry since MSDOS.

From all the things I objected you picked up (like all your friends)
the one you love the most:

MSDOS.

As some people age, they are more and more unable to realize that
they aren't living in their youth, that things change and must be changed..

They prefer to relive the good old days of their past. Your reaction (and
the reaction of your frieds) shows where you are living.

The 1989 standard, Turboc (that will be still recommended) and MSDOS.

"Those were the days, my friend
They will never come back again..."

I can't help you. I just hope that I will avoid becoming like you
in the future.

Unless I'm much mistaken, nearly everyone in this thread have
suggested or approved of the idea of moving all the DOS questions into
a special "archive" section of the FAQ. So your statements above seem
to be gross exaggerations.

 

[bartc]

....
If you think the FAQ is unreliable, by the way, I suggest you send a patch
to Steve Summit. Did you have a specific question in mind whose answer you
consider unreliable?

I'm talking about what newcomers might think after glancing through section
19, which could do with an overhaul.

The rest of it seems sound enough to me, but I'm not an expert, so wouldn't
know if some of the advice written in 1995 (or perhaps earlier) is still
good 15 years later.

 

[Simon Connah]

The target of CP/M was the Intel 8080A. In what way was CP/M out of
date in 1979?

Unix had been out for years before that and was a vastly better system
even then. Even Microsoft had their own Unix OS (at a later date
obviously).

 

[Simon Connah]

Andrew Poelstra wrote:



The specific values mentioned in the FAQ may be no longer relevant, but
we *do* have learners posting code which attempts to allocate local
variable which are so large the allocation fails causing the program to
crash. So there *are* still limits, and learners *do* still hit them!

We also have had people post things similar to, "...but I've got 4GM of
RAM!" when this is pointed out.

Then a discussion on the stack versus heap sounds like it would be in
order rather than issues relating to an outdated, little used operating
system wouldn't you say?

 

[Nick Keighley]

gwowen a écrit :



Exactly.

All this reactions have something in common:

MSDOS is surely not dead in the mind of some people here. They
are still in those times, and a FAQ of those times looks very
modern to them.

With age, some people loose the ability to realize change
and adapting to new stuff. They close themselves from the present
and prefer living in some glorious past, long gone but still
present in their minds.

I have mixed feeling when I see them. There is (of course) the
fear that I could be like them in the future, there is the pity
looking at them and their endless remembrance of times long gone,
and their lost future.

Those people have completely lost the future as a tense: they
never speak about it. Any change is a challenge, any change
is a threat and they perceive it as such.

Look in this group:

Any change to C is perceived as a threat. The overwhelming reaction
to a proposal of getting rid of MSDOS in the FAQ proves beyond
any doubt where those people are living.

That is why I am so despised in this group, now it is at least
clearer. I want to change stuff, and I try to project myself into
the future, and (worst) I even speak about the future of C.

Everybody (with a few exceptions) sees C as a thing of the past,
joined by a few nostalgic old C programmers that live in 1989,
with MSDOS and Turboc.

The fact that those times were TWENTY years ago doesn't bother them.

They want to STAY there, in their untouched glorious past.

as a pastiche of spinoza this isn't bad (cod psychology, a touch of
sociology) but it's got a long way to go. You need to attack the
capitalist system (and in particular american business practices) you
need some literary references to show how well read you are. You
forgot to mention your degree or that you wrote all nash's (beautiful
mind) programs for him.

 

[bartc]

Which bits of section 19 do you think newcomers would think were
unreliable?

I'm beginning to think I ought to have stuck with 3 adjectives instead of
trying for four..

 

[Richard Tobin]

MSDOS and CP/M seem older than they are because they were out of date
when they were designed.

[/QUOTE]

The target of CP/M was the Intel 8080A. In what way was CP/M out of date in
1979?

Nothing to do with the target. It was just a poor operating system.
For example, it only had a single directory for each disk.

-- Richard

 

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield a écrit :

What if they also saw questions about using C with more modern operating
systems? Then what would they all wonder?

If you think the FAQ is unreliable, by the way, I suggest you send a
patch to Steve Summit. Did you have a specific question in mind whose
answer you consider unreliable?

If you would read the original article of this thread
you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

And there they would remain... undeleted. Since the C FAQ is (as you
rightly say) relatively static, however, the archive section is kinda
all mixed up with the non-archive section. I seem to recall that
system-specific questions are in their own chapter anyway, so what's the
problem?

Nooooone. MSDOS deserves a section by itself. Unix doesn't. Windows doesn't,
Apple's iphone OS doesn't.

Everything is OK heathfield, go back to 1989.

 

[jacob navia]

Richard Tobin a écrit :

The target of CP/M was the Intel 8080A. In what way was CP/M out of date in
1979?

Nothing to do with the target. It was just a poor operating system.
For example, it only had a single directory for each disk.

-- Richard[/QUOTE]

Why Unix didn't get used in the early microprocessors?

Because the Unix vendors had another strategy (that eventually
provoked their doom):

They IGNORED the microprocessor revolution. DEC, for instance,
wanted to go on selling VAXes and ignored ALL developments in
that field.

They were eventually bought by compaq, what an irony.

The same later with Sun microsystems, that ignored the mass
market and preferred to stay with their workstations.

They have been bought now by Oracle.

The only Unix vendors that survived were the ones that
did not ignore the mass market like HP or IBM.

CP/M was an incredible step backwards, but it was like
that because UNIX vendors choose to avoid the microprocessor
mass market, a strategy that led directly to their death.

 

[Rob Kendrick]

The same later with Sun microsystems, that ignored the mass
market and preferred to stay with their workstations.

They have been bought now by Oracle.

The only Unix vendors that survived were the ones that
did not ignore the mass market like HP or IBM.

CP/M was an incredible step backwards, but it was like
that because UNIX vendors choose to avoid the microprocessor
mass market, a strategy that led directly to their death.

Confusing. All of DEC, Sun, HP and IBM sold UNIX on microprocessors.
And none of them mass-marketed UNIX. (I don't recall supermarkets
selling HP-UX or AIX systems.)

B.

 

[jacob navia]

Rob Kendrick a écrit :

Confusing. All of DEC, Sun, HP and IBM sold UNIX on microprocessors.

DEC ignored the microprocessor market until it was too late
They sold their own processors. DEC started their own microprocessor
when it was too late, the "vax in a chip". And DEC NEVER
produced a PC. (well almost, their PC was a total failure)

Sun never sold a workstation at the price levels of the
mass market. They could have taken the position of Apple
by selling workstations that would have been directed
to the mass market but they didn't.

DEC and Sun never had any mass market strategy.

HP and IBM produced PCs in great numbers, I just do not
understand why you do not see such a difference!

And none of them mass-marketed UNIX. (I don't recall supermarkets
selling HP-UX or AIX systems.)

No. Instead of doing what NextStep did, making a user friendly
Unix version they marketed MSDOS!

But they survived because of that.

 

[Alexander Bartolich]

Richard Tobin a écrit :

Why Unix didn't get used in the early microprocessors?

False premise. The first workstations built by Sun and Apollo used
Motorola's 68k family of processors.

Because the Unix vendors had another strategy (that eventually
provoked their doom):

They IGNORED the microprocessor revolution. DEC, for instance,
wanted to go on selling VAXes and ignored ALL developments in
that field.

Completely wrong. The first VAX, introduced in 1977, was indeed built
with discrete TTL gates. However, the MicroVAX, introduced in 1984,
implemented the same instruction set using a CPU in VLSI technology.
And the 64-bit DEC Alpha CPU, introduced in 1992, was one of the finest
RISC CPUs ever.

[...]
The same later with Sun microsystems, that ignored the mass
market and preferred to stay with their workstations.

True. But that does not change the fact that their workstations always
used microprocessors. First Motorola's 68k, later Sun's own RISC archi-
tecture called SPARC.

[...]
The only Unix vendors that survived were the ones that
did not ignore the mass market like HP or IBM.

Well, HP always had deep pockets and the right intuition for good
acquisitions. For example the became a serious Unix vendor only after
buying Apollo, and their current PC business is all based on the know
how they bought with Compaq. And it's hard to tell how profitable HP's
computers based on PA-RISC and Itanium were.

IBM is a very special case. Their POWER architecture carried descrete
multi-chip design well into to 1990ies. Off-spins like PowerPC and the
Cell processor were rather short lived. And you might know they sold
their PC clone business to China a few years ago.

CP/M was an incredible step backwards, but it was like
that because UNIX vendors choose to avoid the microprocessor
mass market, a strategy that led directly to their death.

Nice rant. Can you also do that without contradicting facts?

I mean, Gary Kildall originally developed CP/M during 1973-74. That
was about the time when Unix was rewritten in C (hey, we are getting
on-topic again!). So in terms of availability CP/M came first.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Richard Tobin a crit :

Why Unix didn't get used in the early microprocessors?

because it wouldn't fit.

Because the Unix vendors had another strategy (that eventually
provoked their doom):

They IGNORED the microprocessor revolution. DEC, for instance,
wanted to go on selling VAXes and ignored ALL developments in
that field.

this is historical revisionism on a grand scale. It would be fairer to
say the PC people ignored Unix (not necessarily a dumb thing to do at
the time). Note "microprocessor" is not an alias for PC. Just as PC
was not an alias for "IBM PC"

 

[Nick Keighley]

Richard Tobin a crit :

Why Unix didn't get used in the early microprocessors?

Because the Unix vendors had another strategy (that eventually
provoked their doom):

They IGNORED the microprocessor revolution. DEC, for instance,
wanted to go on selling VAXes and ignored ALL developments in
that field.

They were eventually bought by compaq, what an irony.

The same later with Sun microsystems, that ignored the mass
market and preferred to stay with their workstations.

what processor is used in t work station?

 

[Seebs]

False premise. The first workstations built by Sun and Apollo used
Motorola's 68k family of processors.

Yes.

Also, so far as I can tell, the death of "UNIX vendors" has a great deal to
do with the widespread availability of high-quality free competition. Which
is ultimately a great thing -- commoditize the bits we know how to do so
people can focus their budgets and effort on something unique or specific.

-s