Morris said:
Ok. I feel invited to respond...
I don't think there'd be cause for vilification unless you
insisted on disregarding the newsgroup's long established
topicality norm - the C programming language as defined by one or
more of the published standards.
Wait. The most vocal propnents of this "topicality only"
stuff are discussing since a week about english grammar
and about whether "I have a doubt" is correct english or not.
One of them (Mr "Bau") told me that my posts about debuggers
and debugging were "OFF TOPIC" here, and several MINUTES later
sent a post to the english grammar discussion.
What is on topic DEPENDS. If you are a member of the select
group that "calls the shots" you can speak about ANYTHING.
Color of electric cables, whatever. ANYTHING will be accepted
without any complaint.
When *I* post about topics not in the standard but related to
C like debuggers, the stack, lcc-win proposals for language
extensions, etc, then, I have to suffer from the topicality
zealots.
I would expect that someone familiar with those standards would
inform you that none of those language standards addresses
multi-threading or multi-tasking, and that your question could
only be meaningfully answered in the context of a particular
environment and a particular library which exist outside the
scope of all of the published C language standards.
So what?
Most C applications today are multi-threaded and why can't
we discuss about that?
It is much more related than English grammar.
I would also expect that you would have included enough
information about the intended environment(s) to allow
respondents to suggest newsgroups where you might get answers
from the people best qualified to provide useful answers for
those environments.
This is a minor isue. If a poster omits some information,
we can ASK him/her.
Vilification might rightly follow if you declared that you didn't
give a hoot about the established norms and intended to subject
the entire group to the rules that /you/ wanted - or if you
established a pattern of behavior essentially equivalent to that
declaration.
I have tried to remain within C. But I am tired of getting flamed
because
o C99 is viewed as an error, and any code posted that uses STANDARD
C will be flamed as "non-portable" because they say that no
implementation of C99 exists, what is obviously not correct.
Jacob certainly has the capability to contribute in a worthwhile
way to the newsgroup. He's also demonstrated both the capability
and willingness to disregard the group's topicality norm in order
to serve his own personal interests.
Yes, I am vilified as a "money hungry" businessman, that sells
his software. Obviously, people like Microsoft, Red Hat, and
others never do that. "My own personal interests" lead me to
contribute in this group. The fact that my software is free
to use, that it is a very popular C99 implementation doesn't
bother you.
While you may not find that
objectionable, it imposes an avoidable (and therefore
unreasonable) burden on those relatively few people who give
freely of their time, efforts, and expertise just to answer the
substantial volume of on-topic queries.
Those people could just ignore my posts. I would be happy to
be spared the trouble of answering to the insults (my daughter
is addicted to porn, said one of them), to the stupid "off topic"
posts etc.
Stacks and debuggers are topics completely outside the scope of
the C language as specified in the standard(s).
Yes. The standard doesn't mention the word debugging, and never
specifies what happens when Undefined behavior happens. So what?
1) No implementation of C without a stack exists.
2) Debuggers are one of the most often used tools when developing
C code. Obviously "regulars in clc" never use it. So please
IGNORE my posts.
There's hardly
any doubt that these are topics of interest to C programmers -
but that does not those subjects topical here.
So, here we have it. This group, (as decided by these people)
should only discuss their boring, limited view of C, that is at best
represented by TURBOC of 1988.
"Those were the days my friend
they will never come again..."
Sniff sniff
I been reading Richard's articles here for years - long enough to
know something of the person. FWIW, I don't think he's foolish
enough to waste his time and energy hating anyone as harmless to
him as C programmers. He doesn't walk on water, but he has earned
the respect of the best C programmers around.
> If I needed to
assemble a "dream team" for a vitally important software project,
he'd be on my short list. FWIW, I once did compile such a list
and only two of more than two dozen people weren't CLC regulars.
No one here needs your (or my) approval - it's sufficent that
they're tops at what they do.
Yes, I have been forced to read the articles of that person for
some years, and I can tell you that most of the bullshit he
produces will be swallowed by his fan club without any problem.
Technically, he has some clarity of mind, and some of his
works are OK. This doesn't allow him to insult people that
do not share his stupid view of C and the C standard: C99.
I think that standard C, even if it is not implemented in
every compiler around, has many positive improvements over older
standards. I have the right to have this view, and I am
working since years for getting my small implementation up to speed.
I find it stupid (yes, that is the word) that somebody with the
technical capacities of heathfield will wage a war against
standard C.
Agreed - the number of people who pop into a newsgroup and think
that having a usenet connection entitles them to impose their
personal/arbitrary views on those already present is truly
amazing.
One of the most common errors of newcomers is in believing their
(perhaps long) experience in using C badly qualifies them to
instruct others in how to use the language well.
My experience has been that those who prefer name-calling to
quoting the standard(s) or posting standard-compliant code have
been the greatest obstacle to the group's ability to provide
honestly interested individuals with expert technical/learning
assistance.
Yes, you can quote any standard BUT the current one. C99 will be
immediately folllowed by comments "This is not portable". Just
try posting
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to lurk and for giving me
the opportunity to welcome you and to help you better understand
the nature of the group. A less mature newcomer would probably
have been less willing to attempt understanding.
That was YOUR viewpoint of this group.
I beg to differ!