This is the end

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by tmp123, Jan 2, 2006.

  1. tmp123

    tmp123 Guest

    I hope any of my post helps someone, specially to people who is
    learning C.

    Thanks to people who has teach me things I didn't know before.

    And to all... all... and all others, too much posts about nothing, too
    much calls to "skin" and "group habits". Something not seen in other
    usenet groups. Too much for my taste.

    I must end posting on this group.

    Bye.
     
    tmp123, Jan 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tmp123

    tmp123 Guest

    I hope any of my post helps someone, specially to people who is
    learning C.

    Thanks to people who has teach me things I didn't know before.

    And to all... all... and all others, too much posts about nothing, too
    much calls to "skin" and "group habits". Something not seen in other
    usenet groups. Too much for my taste.

    Sorry if any of my comments has been offensive for someone.

    I must end posting on this group.

    Bye.
     
    tmp123, Jan 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tmp123

    Guest

    tmp123 wrote:
    > I hope any of my post helps someone, specially to people who is
    > learning C.
    >
    > Thanks to people who has teach me things I didn't know before.
    >
    > And to all... all... and all others, too much posts about nothing, too
    > much calls to "skin" and "group habits". Something not seen in other
    > usenet groups. Too much for my taste.
    >
    > Sorry if any of my comments has been offensive for someone.
    >
    > I must end posting on this group.
    >


    Too bad. We've all been burned here before (and in my case still get
    burned sometimes). In my opinion, this is the best place to learn about
    the subtleties of C.

    I've been programming C code professionally for 5 years and was amazed
    at how wrong some of my understanding of C was when I first read this
    newsgroup. There are things that they don't teach you in your software
    engineering class at university. And there are things that they DO
    teach you at university that are just plain wrong.

    There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
    act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
    arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.
     
    , Jan 3, 2006
    #3
  4. tmp123

    Eric Sosman Guest

    wrote On 01/02/06 21:40,:
    >
    > There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
    > act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
    > arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.


    One of C's strengths is that it's fairly easy to get
    access to implementation-specific features. Initialize a
    pointer with a magic integer, and you can muck with memory-
    mapped hardware registers. Invoke system-specific operations
    like fork() by making what seem to be perfectly ordinary
    function calls. Use fdopen() to connect FILE* streams to
    sockets. And so on, and so on. If C were unable to do
    such things, it would never have become such an important
    programming language.

    A drawback of all this is that people easily lose sight
    of what things are "C" and what are "C with extras." You
    use the extras (because they help with what you're trying
    to do), and you forget -- if you ever knew -- that they
    aren't part of C. And when you can't get curses to change
    font colors or you can't get a named pipe to buffer the
    way you want, you take your difficulty to a C forum. After
    all, these things are all declared in perfectly normal C
    headers like <unistd.h> and <graphics.h>, so why should
    they be any different from the things in <stdlib.h>?

    And then there's another matter. We make much of the
    facts that two's complement representation is not universal,
    that time_t need not be a count of seconds, that auto
    variables need not be allocated on a stack, and so on. But
    you can write C for years and years and years and never run
    into an implementation where any of these facts are apparent.
    Data point: I last saw a ones' complement machine in the
    mid-1970's, and haven't seen a signed-magnitude machine since
    1968 (it was decimal, by the way). Data point: Every time_t
    I have ever seen was a count of seconds, even if the system
    actually kept time differently "under the hood." Data point:
    Every C implementation I've ever seen used a stack for auto
    variables (those that didn't disappear into registers). If
    a person sees hundreds and hundreds of crows and all of them
    are black, he can be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion
    that all crows are black even if crow DNA doesn't guarantee it.

    The point of all this is that ignorance is forgiveable
    and should be forgiven. Newbies are not to be scorned, but to
    be helped; nobody is born an expert. It can be exasperating
    to correct `void main' for the skillionth time, but it is wrong
    to blame a first-time offender for following the examples he
    sees all about him, never knowing that they're bad examples.

    Let us reserve our flamage for those who truly deserve it:
    the apostates who have been told that fflush(stdin) is wrong
    but who inisit [sic] on doing it anyhow, who protest that what
    is true of their own machine must be true of all, and who keep
    trying to pass off C-with-extras as C. Those who will not
    learn are not in the same class as those who have not learned.

    (I apologize for using the word "class" in c.l.c. Please
    don't flame me for it.)

    --
     
    Eric Sosman, Jan 3, 2006
    #4
  5. Eric Sosman said:

    > (I apologize for using the word "class" in c.l.c. Please
    > don't flame me for it.)


    Why /shouldn't/ you use it? It's not as if it's reserved or anything.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jan 3, 2006
    #5
  6. tmp123

    rayw Guest

    "Eric Sosman" <> wrote in message
    news:dpe3sc$1vn$...


    <snip>


    > The point of all this is that ignorance is forgiveable
    > and should be forgiven. Newbies are not to be scorned, but to
    > be helped




    <snip>



    Laudable *or* Laughable?



    I totally agree with your comments - and I think they were very well put,
    and I certainly appreciate them.



    BUT ...



    Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas today,
    or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
    malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the month
    for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed on
    the wrong side here!



    Since I've been taking part in c.l.c (and 'contributing' positively, I hope
    (but seldom, I admit - as I mostly 'listen')), I've noticed that often
    (IMHO) scorn and offensive comments *win* over respectful ones ... not in
    *number* - far from it - but often in 'holier than thou' attitudes, and in
    'the oi, you numbnuts!, where's the context!' etc that I think are
    unwelcomely submitted here. For instance - is it deliberate that when
    someone makes a OP point - that's perfectly valid - that someone else then
    comes along and basically (deliberately?) reads something else into the
    reply, and pisses on the perfectly reasonable answer someone just gave!?



    I've also noticed that this group gets its fair share of 'you assholes'
    comments (slightly paraphrased!) and I am just a little bit upset at that
    (as there's plenty of great advice here from knowledgeable people), esp. as
    it's often due, I think, to an overly anal, and retrograde attitude amongst
    some members. For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
    post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what? Ok, so,
    ***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
    century for goodness sakes? I for one am often well aware of what's been
    (already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll over
    stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply - often
    doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if everyone
    top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of scrolling
    and show things in a naturally temporal order?



    As far as I can see/tell, this group is in some ways a 'mine is bigger than
    yours' pissing-post, and I note with interest that ppl don't seem to be able
    to lighten up much either - or have any 'sense of community' or can't post
    in any other way than capriciously, e.g., note the O/T lack of Reponses to
    any Happy Christmas/Holidays/New Year here.



    It's a shame!



    Ok, flame away, abuse, and *not* consider the collective attitude - let's
    see how far you might cogitate now?



    For those that can't resist posting without due reflection (reading the
    entire post) - it's a shame.



    Let's be 'nice' to people - or else, just NOT post!
     
    rayw, Jan 3, 2006
    #6
  7. a écrit :
    > Too bad. We've all been burned here before (and in my case still get
    > burned sometimes). In my opinion, this is the best place to learn about
    > the subtleties of C.
    >
    > I've been programming C code professionally for 5 years and was amazed
    > at how wrong some of my understanding of C was when I first read this
    > newsgroup. There are things that they don't teach you in your software
    > engineering class at university. And there are things that they DO
    > teach you at university that are just plain wrong.
    >
    > There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
    > act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
    > arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.


    This is a nice testimony. I like it. Actually, I lived about the same
    experience.

    --
    A+

    Emmanuel Delahaye
     
    Emmanuel Delahaye, Jan 3, 2006
    #7
  8. rayw said:

    <big old snip>

    > For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
    > post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what?


    For the record, up to this point in your article I've been more or less
    nodding in agreement. Okay, so here we go, on top-posting...

    > Ok, so,
    > ***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
    > century for goodness sakes?


    ..dnuor yaw gnorw eht sgniht gnittup htiw gnorw gnihton yletulosba s'erehT

    ..tnetnoc hcus daer ot yrassecen naht redrah eb nac ti tuB

    lanoitanretnI ti sI .ecnereffid yna sekam yrutnec eht woh erus ton ma I
    ?etaretillI eht fo yrutneC

    > I for one am often well aware of what's been
    > (already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll
    > over stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply -


    We don't just advocate context-based posting, for comprehension. We also
    advocate proper trimming of material not relevant to the reply, for
    brevity.

    > often
    > doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if
    > everyone top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of
    > scrolling and show things in a naturally temporal order?


    It would show everything *upside-down*, and it would show *everything*
    upside-down, because nobody would bother to snip irrelevant stuff any more.

    <snip>

    > e.g., note the O/T lack of
    > Reponses to any Happy Christmas/Holidays/New Year here.


    A lot of comp.lang.c people are traditionalists. For a very long time, the
    *only* date of celebration recognised all over Usenet was 1st April. In
    comp.lang.c that is still more or less the case.

    <snip>

    > Let's be 'nice' to people - or else, just NOT post!


    You would get on well with Stefan Wilms.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jan 3, 2006
    #8
  9. "rayw" <> writes:
    [...]
    > For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
    > post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what? Ok, so,
    > ***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
    > century for goodness sakes? I for one am often well aware of what's been
    > (already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll over
    > stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply - often
    > doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if everyone
    > top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of scrolling
    > and show things in a naturally temporal order?

    [...]

    Bottom-posting without trimming quoted material isn't much better than
    top-posting. The correct way to post a followup is to quote *only*
    what's relevant to your followup, followed by any new text (as I've
    done here). This allows each article to be read naturally from top to
    bottom.

    You're suggesting that all the extraneous quoted material that nobody
    wants to re-read should be relegated to the bottom of the article,
    where it's easier to ignore. If you expect it to be ignored, do your
    readers a favor and just don't post it (i.e., trim what's irrelevant).
    By choosing which parts of the parent article are relevant, you're
    exercising some editorial control and, again, making your own article
    much easier to read. Since most of us spend more time reading
    articles than writing them, any extra time you spend making things
    just a little easier for your readers is a net gain.

    It's what we've been doing here for many years, and it works very
    well.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Jan 3, 2006
    #9
  10. tmp123

    Chuck F. Guest

    Emmanuel Delahaye wrote:
    > a écrit :
    >
    >> Too bad. We've all been burned here before (and in my case
    >> still get burned sometimes). In my opinion, this is the best
    >> place to learn about the subtleties of C.
    >>
    >> I've been programming C code professionally for 5 years and
    >> was amazed at how wrong some of my understanding of C was when
    >> I first read this newsgroup. There are things that they don't
    >> teach you in your software engineering class at university.
    >> And there are things that they DO teach you at university that
    >> are just plain wrong.
    >>
    >> There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility
    >> and don't act like a troll. The resident experts have little
    >> patience for arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.

    >
    > This is a nice testimony. I like it. Actually, I lived about the
    > same experience.
    >

    I think that applies to virtually everyone who has been around here
    for more than a few months.

    --
    "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
    More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
     
    Chuck F., Jan 3, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <OpBuf.83077$>,
    rayw <> wrote:

    >For example - I've never understood the 'thou shalt not top
    >post' thing - is it a fashion, habit, a religion - or what? Ok, so,
    >***include context***, but what's wrong in top posting - it's the 21st
    >century for goodness sakes? I for one am often well aware of what's been
    >(already) said, and I'm personally 'pissed' that I often have to scroll over
    >stuff I've already seen numerous times in order to see a reply - often
    >doubly pissing-me-off' if it's ultimately a one liner! Surely, if everyone
    >top-posted, it would be 'optimal' ---- it'd save an awful lot of scrolling
    >and show things in a naturally temporal order?


    Perhaps my memory is not as good as yours, but I *don't* remember
    the detailed context or exact wording of many threads; I need
    the properly trimmed and interspersed quoting to refocus my attention.

    Yes, the exact wording is important, not just the "gist" of the words.
    In technical discussions, small differences in wordings can indicate
    completely different conceptions of what is really happening. In
    non-technical discussions, small differences in wording are important
    if one is to avoid "putting words in someone else's mouth".

    If you find that you are able to remember the details to your satisfaction,
    then I would inquire about the volume of messages you read, and how
    closely you follow them. Typically, I'm following several hundred -new-
    threads simultaneously on any one day. The average thread that I follow
    has an active lifespan of -about- four days -- but there are some
    discussions that I follow that involve literally -months- of heavy posting
    (e.g., more than 7500 concentrated postings in news.groups in less than
    4 months.)

    I would speculate that you probably do not read more than a small
    fraction of the number of messages that some of us do.
    --
    All is vanity. -- Ecclesiastes
     
    Walter Roberson, Jan 3, 2006
    #11
  12. tmp123

    Randy Howard Guest

    rayw wrote
    (in article <OpBuf.83077$>):

    > Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas today,
    > or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
    > malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the month
    > for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed on
    > the wrong side here!


    If you have thin skin and can't stand controversy, Usenet is not
    for you. If on the other hand, you can take things "with a
    grain of salt", then it can be a useful medium, at least in the
    very few remaining newsgroups which manage to stay on-topic.

    Admittedly people exhibit short tempers here, just as they do
    elsewhere. However, I think a lot of the frustration is against
    those that use it as a free version of "rentacoder" wherein you
    ask for help in violating your school's rules about cheating on
    assignments, ignore requests to at least abide by the basics of
    Usenet posting etiquette, etc.

    Remember that a large number of the regulars here were around
    back when Usenet was used by and large only by more technical
    professional people and by students that were serious about
    learning, not just trying to graduate by hook or by crook.
    Missing that environment probably adds to the exasperation.

    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
    who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
     
    Randy Howard, Jan 3, 2006
    #12
  13. tmp123

    Guest

    Eric Sosman wrote:
    > wrote On 01/02/06 21:40,:
    > >
    > > There's something here for all to learn. Just have humility and don't
    > > act like a troll. The resident experts have little patience for
    > > arrogant trolls who inisit on invoking UB.

    > And then there's another matter. We make much of the
    > facts that two's complement representation is not universal,
    > that time_t need not be a count of seconds, that auto
    > variables need not be allocated on a stack, and so on. But
    > you can write C for years and years and years and never run
    > into an implementation where any of these facts are apparent.
    > Data point: I last saw a ones' complement machine in the
    > mid-1970's, and haven't seen a signed-magnitude machine since
    > 1968 (it was decimal, by the way). Data point: Every time_t
    > I have ever seen was a count of seconds, even if the system
    > actually kept time differently "under the hood." Data point:
    > Every C implementation I've ever seen used a stack for auto
    > variables (those that didn't disappear into registers). If
    > a person sees hundreds and hundreds of crows and all of them
    > are black, he can be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion
    > that all crows are black even if crow DNA doesn't guarantee it.
    >


    I'd like to add another datapoint here:

    1. C on PowerPC doesn't necessarily use a stack to pass parameters to
    functions. In fact, IBM recommends that as far as possible parameters
    should be passed via registers. This probably have something to do with
    the fact that stack manipulation is cumbersome on the PPC and the CPU
    itself have tons of programmer accessible registers. IBM's compiler
    does this. Apple's implementation of gcc (Xcode) does this. I'm not
    sure about official gcc.

    > The point of all this is that ignorance is forgiveable
    > and should be forgiven. Newbies are not to be scorned, but to
    > be helped; nobody is born an expert. It can be exasperating
    > to correct `void main' for the skillionth time, but it is wrong
    > to blame a first-time offender for following the examples he
    > sees all about him, never knowing that they're bad examples.
    >


    If forgiven is the same as not telling him he's wrong then I disagree.
    If forgiven is to tell him gently then it's up to the person telling
    him.

    > Let us reserve our flamage for those who truly deserve it:
    > the apostates who have been told that fflush(stdin) is wrong
    > but who inisit [sic] on doing it anyhow, who protest that what
    > is true of their own machine must be true of all, and who keep
    > trying to pass off C-with-extras as C. Those who will not
    > learn are not in the same class as those who have not learned.
    >


    I agree. Those who refuse to learn after repeated advice deserve to be
    flamed.
     
    , Jan 4, 2006
    #13
  14. tmp123

    clayne Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > .dnuor yaw gnorw eht sgniht gnittup htiw gnorw gnihton yletulosba s'erehT
    >
    > .tnetnoc hcus daer ot yrassecen naht redrah eb nac ti tuB
    >
    > lanoitanretnI ti sI .ecnereffid yna sekam yrutnec eht woh erus ton ma I
    > ?etaretillI eht fo yrutneC


    Yea, now c'mon. This isn't even a reasonable comparison. Look, whether
    someone replies on top or on bottom, it's the SAME thing. Scope is what
    matters. The real issue here is that we have a good amount of just
    plain inflexible people who cannot think outside of the box for just 5
    minutes to realize the following:

    "When I read a reply to someone... Let me first read the part with the
    quote-symbol delimited content first (">"), and then read the unquoted
    new content section."

    If you haven't formed this into a motor function by now, I don't know
    what to tell you. Honestly, I think the real beef is that people just
    don't want the new content showing up to their eyes before the
    context.. some kind of perverse control thing... ("no, let ME determine
    the order in which I read new things!" type of deal). Learn a new
    adaptive method, learn a new coping mechanism instead of pumping the NG
    full of replies telling people who to reply/quote when the issue is
    insignificant (granted, I don't see you as a significant contributor to
    this, I see Keith Thompson as the main curator).

    > It would show everything *upside-down*, and it would show *everything*
    > upside-down, because nobody would bother to snip irrelevant stuff any more.


    I regularly clip the long history of people's email at work when some
    Outlook user decides to quote the entire message, followed by everyone
    else doing it. It makes no difference on the actual content I'm
    quoting, however. Once again though, we're back to that Asperger's
    Syndrome-like fear that the whole world will jump off a top-posting
    bridge the second it's not chastised at every corner.

    > A lot of comp.lang.c people are traditionalists. For a very long time, the
    > *only* date of celebration recognised all over Usenet was 1st April. In
    > comp.lang.c that is still more or less the case.


    s/traditionalists/androids/g

    > You would get on well with Stefan Wilms.
    >
    > --
    > Richard Heathfield


    But probably not with Dick Heathfield, right?
     
    clayne, Jan 4, 2006
    #14
  15. tmp123

    clayne Guest

    rayw wrote:
    > Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas today,
    > or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
    > malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the month
    > for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed on
    > the wrong side here!


    A perfect example of this:

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp...29edd864a6a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=6#d85e929edd864a6a

    Almost every single person who replied to the guy was basically a jerk
    to him. Even after he was being fairly understanding and recognizing. I
    find it funny that people will spend more time authorizing dick replies
    than just NOT replying at all to someone who is definitely posting in
    the wrong NG.
     
    clayne, Jan 4, 2006
    #15
  16. clayne said:

    Sure it is. [Actually clayne didn't say that, but bear with me here. You'll
    soon work it out, I think.] Are you not flexible enough to cope with text
    that is the other way around to the way you usually see it? Don't you think
    you have a duty to put up with it because I happen to like doing it that
    way? Or would it make more sense for me to make my text easier to read if I
    wish to communicate effectively with people rather than jar them off all
    the time?

    > Yea, now c'mon. This isn't even a reasonable comparison.


    No, it's not the same at all. One reply is in the right place, the place
    that makes it easy to follow the discussion - and the other one isn't.

    > Look, whether
    > someone replies on top or on bottom, it's the SAME thing.


    Scope isn't all that important if you reduce the amount of quoted text to
    the minimum necessary to remind people of the context of the discussion. By
    reducing the amount of scope people have to deal with, you'll reduce it to
    the point where it's hardly relevant. But when you start putting things the
    wrong way up, that doesn't make things easier for people; it makes them
    harder.

    In fact, if you have a particularly long paragraph or series of paragraphs,
    it may well be that, by the time you get to the end of it, the stuff you as
    a top-poster left in might seem very strange indeed, since if it bears any
    relevance at all to your reply, that relevance - that connection - is much
    more likely to be associated with the beginning of your paragraph rather
    than the end.

    As an example of this, please observe the following statement (to which this
    set of paragraphs is a reply), and note how your mind is jarred back to the
    beginning of this set of paragraphs, rather than having the reply flowing
    smoothly /from/ the prompting text.

    > Scope is what matters.


    Well, no, it isn't a question of thinking outside of the box; the real issue
    here is that we have one person who thinks he knows best and a whole bunch
    of people who have years of experience of helping people to learn better C,
    and the whole bunch of people have for many years settled on a style which
    they think works efficiently, allowing them to answer a large number of
    questions with considerable speed.

    Anything which *slows them down* is going to reduce the usefulness of
    comp.lang.c - and we don't want that. (Please remember that we don't get
    paid for this. We want to help people. Lots of people. But we can't spend
    all day doing it.)

    Top-posting certainly slows /me/ down, which is why I don't like it, and I
    don't suppose other regular contributors here are much different to me in
    their reasoning. And one last thing about your statement: did you not, in
    your upside-down world, mean to write "the preceding" rather than "the
    following"?

    > The real issue here is that we have a good amount of just
    > plain inflexible people who cannot think outside of the box for just 5
    > minutes to realize the following:


    Yes, whoever wrote that is right; it does indeed make a lot more sense to
    see the question before you see the answer.

    > "When I read a reply to someone... Let me first read the part with the
    > quote-symbol delimited content first (">"), and then read the unquoted
    > new content section."


    We have. But our automatic response is to look /below/ the question for the
    answer. When we don't find it there, we have to search for it consciously.
    It may only take a moment longer. But some of us can do a lot in a moment.
    Like, we could be answering other people's questions. (Incidentally, the
    only reason I'm bothering to explain all this to you is that I'm far too
    ill today to focus on writing good code.)

    > If you haven't formed this into a motor function by now, I don't know
    > what to tell you.


    That's right, that's precisely what we don't want - but for good reasons.

    > Honestly, I think the real beef is that people just
    > don't want the new content showing up to their eyes before the
    > context..


    Well, it's not so much that, and more because it's common sense to have the
    question appear before the answer.

    > some kind of perverse control thing...


    Is it not incumbent on the technical writer to present the reader with the
    material in the order that the reader expects it, so that he will gain the
    most value from it in the shortest possible time?

    > ("no, let ME determine
    > the order in which I read new things!" type of deal).


    Try popping down to your local garage to get free tips on what you're doing
    wrong in car maintenance. While you're there, straighten the guy's tie -
    or, if he's not wearing one - take one and tie it on him yourself. Whenever
    he says something, make sure you're standing on your head before replying.
    If he thinks you're nuts, tell him to stand on his head too. Tell him he's
    got Asperger's Syndrome, and is not being flexible. Tell him to learn a new
    adaptive method - like standing on his head, for example. And don't forget
    to act all surprised and hurt when he tells you to drop dead and refuses to
    give you any more personalised free advice.

    > Learn a new adaptive method,


    Wouldn't it be easier for you to learn a new coping mechanism instead of
    banging on about top-posting when it's obvious we're not about to adopt a
    less efficient convention just because somebody asks us to?

    > learn a new coping mechanism instead of pumping the NG
    > full of replies telling people who to reply/quote when the issue is
    > insignificant


    In fact, I hardly mention it at all. (Are you wondering what I mean by "it"
    yet? You wouldn't be, if I'd written this reply in the traditional way.)

    And the reason I hardly mention it (what?) at all is that I know from
    experience that arguing with top-posters is almost always a waste of time.
    And so, instead of arguing with them, I generally *don't bother answering
    their questions*. I'm not religious about it, but I generally find myself
    skipping past articles that don't provide context in the place I expect to
    find it.

    So now what are you going to do? Insist that I engage with top-posters?
    Remember you're not paying me for this. It may not sound very fair to you,
    but I don't recall seeing anything about "fair" on the box lid. There's
    nothing in the rules to force me to engage with clueless people.

    Maybe you'll argue that, by refusing to engage with top-posters, I'm not
    learning anything from them. Well, that's fine by me because I tend to be a
    giver of advice here rather than a recipient, and in any case all the
    clueful regular contributors here know how to write Usenet articles
    properly, so if ever I do have a question about C, there are plenty of
    knowledgeable people ready to answer it, without my having to rely on the
    (generally flawed) knowledge of people who can't even learn which way round
    a question and answer should go. So - no loss there either, from my point
    of view.

    Maybe there are other people in this newsgroup who have the same strategy as
    me: silently ignoring most top-posted articles. I don't know. But if there
    are, then top-posting in comp.lang.c becomes a way to reduce significantly
    your chances of getting good-quality help and advice.

    Keith Thompson is actually doing newcomers a service by drawing their
    attention to the customs and mores of the regular contributors to this
    group. It's a thankless task, on the whole, and one which he has been
    performing quietly for quite a while, as well as helping people to
    understand C better. Although I have never met Keith, I feel as if I have
    come to know him quite well, and I would just like him to know how much I
    appreciate his contributions to this newsgroup.

    > (granted, I don't see you as a significant contributor to
    > this, I see Keith Thompson as the main curator).


    I don't know. I never heard of anyone by that name. <shrug> For your
    information, though, Stefan Wilms was the founder of the campaign against
    excessive grumpiness in comp.lang.c.

    > But probably not with Dick Heathfield, right?


    That was exhausting and confusing. I hope I never have to write another
    reply like it.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jan 4, 2006
    #16
  17. tmp123

    clayne Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > clayne said:
    >
    > Sure it is. [Actually clayne didn't say that, but bear with me here. You'll
    > soon work it out, I think.] Are you not flexible enough to cope with text
    > that is the other way around to the way you usually see it? Don't you think
    > you have a duty to put up with it because I happen to like doing it that
    > way? Or would it make more sense for me to make my text easier to read if I
    > wish to communicate effectively with people rather than jar them off all
    > the time?
    >
    > [all other explicitly top-posted replies and my original context clipped]


    Richard, I think you've got a good head on your shoulders. I will
    concede that the order in which you wrote the reply did do it's job. I
    think I should clarify my gripe a bit more:

    When people quote a small-section or just a paragraph and reply on top,
    I really don't think it's a big deal, it's a single question/answer
    response or interact. However, when people leave 4 pages of quoted
    material - I think that's an annoying waste of bandwidth. I will agree
    with everyone on that.

    I think an entirely answer->question style reply is out of the norm for
    almost everyone to write in western writing style. I don't really even
    come across it *that* often. IT's when people get bent out of shape
    over a single top-post answer (on top of a single question or segment)
    that gets on my nerves. It's just not worth it and some of us are
    actually tired of reading the mother-like nagging.
     
    clayne, Jan 4, 2006
    #17
  18. clayne said:

    > I will concede that the order in which you wrote the reply did do
    > it's job.


    Thank heaven for that. I wouldn't have wanted to do that again.

    > I think I should clarify my gripe a bit more:
    >
    > When people quote a small-section or just a paragraph and reply on top,
    > I really don't think it's a big deal, it's a single question/answer
    > response or interact.


    It's still a nuisance, and so I still ignore such articles. I don't bother
    to try to engage with such replies. It's not a good use of my time.

    > However, when people leave 4 pages of quoted
    > material - I think that's an annoying waste of bandwidth. I will agree
    > with everyone on that.


    Fine, so you're halfway home. Well done. :)

    > I think an entirely answer->question style reply is out of the norm for
    > almost everyone to write in western writing style. I don't really even
    > come across it *that* often.


    I've now shown you two different ways in which changing the order of a reply
    can make it harder to read. Top-posting (of the kind you are talking about)
    is merely a third way.

    > IT's when people get bent out of shape
    > over a single top-post answer (on top of a single question or segment)
    > that gets on my nerves. It's just not worth it and some of us are
    > actually tired of reading the mother-like nagging.


    There's an easy solution - just add anyone whose replies you don't like into
    your killfile. But you'll probably find yourself killfiling some of the
    most useful and clueful people in the newsgroup. There's a lesson there
    somewhere.


    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jan 4, 2006
    #18
  19. tmp123

    rayw Guest

    "clayne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > rayw wrote:
    >> Maybe it's that the coffee shop sold out of double-extra/caf mochas
    >> today,
    >> or that someone's finally had enough of saying 'you shouldn't cast
    >> malloc()'. Or - maybe the night before just wasn't a good time of the
    >> month
    >> for someone? But, it seems to me that too often someone rolls out of bed
    >> on
    >> the wrong side here!

    >
    > A perfect example of this:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp...29edd864a6a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=6#d85e929edd864a6a
    >
    > Almost every single person who replied to the guy was basically a jerk
    > to him. Even after he was being fairly understanding and recognizing. I
    > find it funny that people will spend more time authorizing dick replies
    > than just NOT replying at all to someone who is definitely posting in
    > the wrong NG.


    Actually, you found the exact thread that I had in mind, and which
    instigated my comment. I also know that at least one member here
    [ashamedly, not me] sent the guy an email apologizing for the shit he took
    here.
     
    rayw, Jan 4, 2006
    #19
  20. Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    [snip]
    > Keith Thompson is actually doing newcomers a service by drawing their
    > attention to the customs and mores of the regular contributors to this
    > group. It's a thankless task, on the whole, and one which he has been
    > performing quietly for quite a while, as well as helping people to
    > understand C better. Although I have never met Keith, I feel as if I have
    > come to know him quite well, and I would just like him to know how much I
    > appreciate his contributions to this newsgroup.


    Thanks for the kind words. (*blush*)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Jan 4, 2006
    #20
    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. Neo Geshel
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,621
    Versteijn
    Aug 18, 2004
  2. William
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,739
    Kevin Spencer
    Jun 1, 2005
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    355
  4. Jimmy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    330
    J. J. Farrell
    Sep 9, 2011
  5. Jimmy
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    653
    Peter Nilsson
    Sep 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page