The chart of comp.lang.c

[jacob navia]

This group is too old to have a chart.

One of the earliest things that could replace a chart however,
is the message by the founder of the group, Jerry Schwarz.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups : net.news.group, net.lang.c
From : eagle!jerry
Date : Fri Oct 22 01:28:04 1982
Local : Ven 22 oct 1982 01:28
Subject : C language newsgroup started

My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.

It's purpose is to carry on discussion of C programming and
the C programming language. Appropriate topics are

Queries on how to write something in C
Queries about why some C code behaves the way it does
Suggestions for C modifications or extensions
C coding "tricks"
Compiler bugs
Availability of compilers
etc.

Jerry Schwarz
BTL -- Murray Hill
harpo!eagle!jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------

In that time, nobody was afraid of discussing the evolution of the
language. C was considered a living language, i.e. one that can grow,
adapt to new usages, in a word, evolve.

Since then, C++ was declared the better C, and C was relegated to
the museum of programming languages.

I do not share that view. I find C is a simple language, that with some
minimal extensions can be used for any project, any usage. That is why
I post here those extensions, because I want them to become mainstream
parts of the language.

Contrary to what many people believe, I am not doing something that is
not allowed in the chart of this newsgroup. The problem with those
people is that they have lost the capacity of seeing the language
as something living, that must be changed/improved over time, and see
it as a dead corpse, that must be maintained in a mummified state.

jacob

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

This group is too old to have a chart.

The word is "charter", as you have been told before. Nevertheless, it
makes a pleasant change to be able to say that you are quite right -
this group does indeed pre-date charters.

One of the earliest things that could replace a chart however,
is the message by the founder of the group, Jerry Schwarz.

Perhaps Jerry Schwarz would care to offer his opinion on whether he
intended his message to determine topicality 25 years later. In the
absence of such an expression of opinion, suitably validated for
authenticity, I see no reason to change current practice.

Still, for the sake of an open mind, let's look at his suggested topics
of discussion:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups : net.news.group, net.lang.c
From : eagle!jerry
Date : Fri Oct 22 01:28:04 1982
Local : Ven 22 oct 1982 01:28
Subject : C language newsgroup started

My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.

It's purpose is to carry on discussion of C programming and
the C programming language. Appropriate topics are

Queries on how to write something in C

That's still topical here.

Queries about why some C code behaves the way it does

That's still topical here.

Suggestions for C modifications or extensions

Modification suggestions become topical in comp.std.c (which appears to
date back to 1988 or so), so there was no longer any need to support
such discussions here. Extension suggestions have become the remit of
individual compiler-dedicated newsgroups, so again there is no longer
any need to support such discussions here.

C coding "tricks"

That's still topical her.

Compiler bugs

Compiler bugs are now within the purview of individual
compiler-dedicated newsgroups, so again there is no longer any need to
support such discussions here.

Availability of compilers

The availability of compilers is now within the purview of individual
compiler-dedicated newsgroups, so again there is no longer any need to
support such discussions here.

etc.

Jerry Schwarz
BTL -- Murray Hill
harpo!eagle!jerry

That's still true. If you want to discuss it, *YOU CAN*! That's what
comp.std.c is for.

Contrary to what many people believe, I am not doing something that is
not allowed in the chart of this newsgroup.

This group DOES NOT HAVE a charter. Nor does it have a chart. What it
does have is a set of topicality conventions that work well. All the
things you want to discuss CAN be discussed in newsgroups where they
are appropriate. There are far more of these than there used to be.
Things have come a long way since 1983. Usenet changes, and we change
with it. Usenet has evolved from "one group for every possible
discussion subject containing the letter C" to "many groups based
around the C language, some for compilers, some for extensions, some
for modifications, some for usage, and so on - so choose the
appropriate group".

 

[Richard]

jacob navia said:


The word is "charter", as you have been told before. Nevertheless, it
makes a pleasant change to be able to say that you are quite right -
this group does indeed pre-date charters.


Perhaps Jerry Schwarz would care to offer his opinion on whether he
intended his message to determine topicality 25 years later. In the

Normally that's what charters do. To prevent cocky young scuds redefining
it for their own benefit at a later date.

absence of such an expression of opinion, suitably validated for
authenticity, I see no reason to change current practice.

Of course you don't.

Still, for the sake of an open mind, let's look at his suggested topics
of discussion:


That's still topical here.


That's still topical here.


Modification suggestions become topical in comp.std.c (which appears to
date back to 1988 or so), so there was no longer any need to support
such discussions here. Extension suggestions have become the remit of
individual compiler-dedicated newsgroups, so again there is no longer
any need to support such discussions here.


That's still topical her.


Compiler bugs are now within the purview of individual
compiler-dedicated newsgroups, so again there is no longer any need to
support such discussions here.


The availability of compilers is now within the purview of individual
compiler-dedicated newsgroups, so again there is no longer any need to
support such discussions here.

Rubbish. Here is a collection of C programmers all using different C
compilers. Where else is better to get a thread comparing and
contrasting different C compilers. Hint : if you go to to the gcc forum
they will recommend .... oh. You get it. Good.

Ditto for recommended C IDEs and editors.

 

[Eric Sosman]

This group is too old to have a chart.
[...]

Never too old to acquire one:


|
| +----+
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| +----+ |####|
| |####| |####|
| |####| |####|
| |####| |####|
+---+----+-----+----+------
Signal Noise





(This is a "chart." The word you're thinking of is
"charter," etymologically related but not the same thing
at all.)

 

[Roberto Waltman]

|
| +----+
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| |####|
| +----+ |####|
| |####| |####|
| |####| |####|
| |####| |####|
+---+----+-----+----+------
Signal Noise

The Y axis is logarithmic, right?

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

 

[Clever Monkey]

This group is too old to have a chart.

One of the earliest things that could replace a chart however,
is the message by the founder of the group, Jerry Schwarz.

This is off-topic in comp.lang.c. Try a group dedicated to discussions
about newsgroups and newsgroup charters.

(I could not resist.)

 

[Serve Lau]

This is off-topic in comp.lang.c. Try a group dedicated to discussions
about newsgroups and newsgroup charters.

(I could not resist.)

I think talking about what is off and on topic is topical

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

jacob navia said:

Still, for the sake of an open mind, let's look at his suggested topics
of discussion:


Compiler bugs are now within the purview of individual
compiler-dedicated newsgroups, so again there is no longer any need to
support such discussions here.

I'd be quite happy if comp.lang.c were the first point of call for
many suspected compiler bugs. The number of suspected compiler bugs
is so many order of magnitude greater than the number of actual bugs
that the vast majority of these posting are likely to turn out to be
topical here.

If a bug is determined to exist, the discussion should be re-directed,
or course.

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

This is off-topic in comp.lang.c. Try a group dedicated to discussions
about newsgroups and newsgroup charters.

(I could not resist.)

You should have resisted, since you are completely wrong. Discussion
about topicality in a newsgroup is always topical in that newsgroup.

 

[Default User]

You should have resisted, since you are completely wrong. Discussion
about topicality in a newsgroup is always topical in that newsgroup.

Which it pretty much HAS to be.



Brian

 

[Robert Gamble]

You should have resisted, since you are completely wrong.

And you are completely lacking a sense of humor.

Robert Gamble

 

[Al Balmer]

Perhaps Jerry Schwarz would care to offer his opinion on whether he
intended his message to determine topicality 25 years later. In the
absence of such an expression of opinion, suitably validated for
authenticity, I see no reason to change current practice.

With all due respect for Jerry Schwartz, I see no need to change
current practice regardless of his intentions 25 years ago

 

[C. Benson Manica]

Perhaps Jerry Schwarz would care to offer his opinion on whether he
intended his message to determine topicality 25 years later. In the
absence of such an expression of opinion, suitably validated for
authenticity, I see no reason to change current practice.

Even if he did care to dictate topicality based on his original
intents, it would be a bit like the ghost of George Washington
insisting that the Three Fifths Compromise was still topical on
alt.american.politics even after it had long since been relegated to
alt.american.history

 

[Malcolm McLean]

The Y axis is logarithmic, right?

Square. The energy of a wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

Rubbish. Here is a collection of C programmers all using different C
compilers. Where else is better to get a thread comparing and
contrasting different C compilers. Hint : if you go to to the gcc forum
they will recommend .... oh. You get it. Good.

Ditto for recommended C IDEs and editors.

Threads comparing compilers aren't inherently non-topical, but it is hard to
think of such a thread that wouldn't be best handled elsewhere.
For instance you could compare two compilers for efficiency, but that would
be platform-specific, so normally it would go on a Unix or Windows group. Or
you could compare their extensions, but that's more of a comp.std.c thread.
Or you could have a free software vs evil Microsoft thread, but that's more
political than technical.

The same goes for IDEs. Whilst a thread on the general principles of IDEs
would be topical, such as one on the merits of syntax colouring, discussion
of a specific IDE, such as "how do I get rid of those stdafx.h inclusions on
MS VC++ Express" are better on groups for that compiler. Anyone fortunate
enough never to ahve heard of MS VC++ Express will simply be irritated by
endless IDE-specific threads.

That's not to say that topicality must be so tightly drawn that no one must
ever mention a specific implementation. But generally threads outside of
actual language issues are not to be encouraged, becasue C is such a
wdiely-used language that it would rapidly swamp the ng.

 

[santosh]

Threads comparing compilers aren't inherently non-topical, but it is hard
to think of such a thread that wouldn't be best handled elsewhere.

For instance you could compare two compilers for efficiency, but that
would be platform-specific, so normally it would go on a Unix or Windows
group.

It'd probably be more topical in a group for one of those compilers.

Or you could compare their extensions, but that's more of a
comp.std.c thread.

No it's not. That's topical in the groups for those compilers.

Or you could have a free software vs evil Microsoft
thread, but that's more political than technical.
Right.

The same goes for IDEs. Whilst a thread on the general principles of IDEs
would be topical, such as one on the merits of syntax colouring,

I don't think so. IDEs have nothing to do with C. Such discussion might be
topical in <though.

<snip>

 

[Richard]

The group <news:comp.compilers> might be a better venue.

No. it wouldnt. Reason? Because there are a bunch of compiler writers
there. Not C programmers who are interested in "general issues with
compilers" to improve their daily work.

It'd probably be more topical in a group for one of those compilers.

How do you compare with "one" compiler?

No it's not. That's topical in the groups for those compilers.


I don't think so. IDEs have nothing to do with C. Such discussion might be
topical in <news:comp.programming> though.

IDEs dedicated to C would, IMO, be on topic here. Why? Because C
programmers live here. They know. Their advice is important and
valuable. It would be selfish to deprive people of your knowledge.

 

[pete]

Square.
The energy of a wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude.

It's logarithmic. The units are decibels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

 

[Chris Dollin]

The group <news:comp.compilers> might be a better venue.

comp.compilers is more about the theory and practice of compiler-writing
than about comparing existing compilers: at least from the message
content that's what it looks like.

Oh, wait, the FAQ is to paw:

| Any message discussing aspects of compiler design and implementation
| is appropriate. Language design is usually OK as well insofar as it
| affects compiler design, until it drifts off into theological issues
| like where the semicolon goes.

| Questions about particular compilers, programming languages, and
| systems should go to newsgroups about the language or system.

 

[jacob navia]

No. it wouldnt. Reason? Because there are a bunch of compiler writers
there. Not C programmers who are interested in "general issues with
compilers" to improve their daily work.


How do you compare with "one" compiler?


IDEs dedicated to C would, IMO, be on topic here. Why? Because C
programmers live here. They know. Their advice is important and
valuable. It would be selfish to deprive people of your knowledge.

Exactly.
Most developers now use IDEs, and that issue is completely ignored.