Threads still offtopic?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by kashdan, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. kashdan

    kashdan Guest

    I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
    Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?

    It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
    on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
    comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
    pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.

    People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?

    Thank you.
     
    kashdan, Aug 13, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. kashdan

    Eric Sosman Guest

    On 8/13/2012 4:50 PM, kashdan wrote:
    > I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
    > Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?


    I want to know why you think I deem threads off-topic. Please
    answer, if you have an answer, with actual citations from posts of
    mine made after C11's adoption. (Read them carefully first: There
    was a discussion not so long ago in which I told someone to take his
    question to c.p.t, because he was using Pthreads and *not* C11's
    threads. Discussion of Pthreads -- and Windowthreads and VMSthreads
    and Bastingthreads -- *is* off-topic here.)

    > It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
    > on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
    > comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
    > pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.


    You're right: It's a conspiracy. Our numbers are legion, our
    legions are overpowering, our eyes are everywhere, and you have just
    been moved eleven places up on our hit list. Get your affairs in
    order.

    > People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?


    "What."

    I've mentioned C11's threads a few times in this group, but
    have declined to discuss them in any detail because I do not feel
    sufficiently knowledgable about them to offer useful information.
    I also don't write much about locales, or wide-character issues, or
    even about complex arithmetic. Someone who thinks that's evidence
    that I "don't accept" the Standard is deficient in logic.

    --
    Eric Sosman
    d
     
    Eric Sosman, Aug 13, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. kashdan <> writes:
    > I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
    > Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?
    >
    > It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
    > on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
    > comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
    > pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.
    >
    > People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?


    In my opinion:

    Discussion of threads as defined by C11 is certainly topical here;
    I don't recall anyone stating otherwise. But I haven't seen much
    discussion of C11 threads, probably because there are few if any
    implementations (as far as I know).

    Discussion of threads as defined by POSIX would be topical in
    comp.unix.programmer and/or comp.programming.threads.

    Discussion of the relationship between between pthreads and C11
    threads (how similar they are, details of the differences between
    them) would be topical here and/or in comp.std.c.

    We aren't seeing much topical discussion of threads here because
    the vast majority of *practical* questions about threads depend on
    POSIX threads, not C11 threads.

    I *really* don't think there's any "conspiracy of silence"; if there is,
    nobody told me about it.

    If you want to discuss C11 threads here, by all means do so. (But I
    don't know how much response you'll get; I, for one, have not really
    looked into them.)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Aug 13, 2012
    #3
  4. kashdan

    Jens Gustedt Guest

    Am 13.08.2012 22:50, schrieb kashdan:
    > I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
    > Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?


    personal attacts are rarely productive

    there has e.g be a discussion on an underspecification of tss_t that
    had been triggered by Jacob Navia (or was it on comp.std.c?) that has
    resulted in an informal defect report that you can find here:

    http://p99.gforge.inria.fr/defects-and-improvements/DR-tss.html

    > It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
    > on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
    > comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
    > pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.
    >
    > People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?


    Most people here probably just don't have the experience with it,
    since there are not so many compilers out there that implement C11.

    If you are interested in trying out many of C11 *and* you have gcc,
    clang or similar at hand on top of a POSIX system, you can go for P99
    (see above), where I implemented wrappers that do most of it. Through
    that I use the C11 thread interfaces on a daily base, and for me it
    works smoothly. I would be happy to have more feedback on this
    implementation.

    Jens
     
    Jens Gustedt, Aug 13, 2012
    #4
  5. kashdan

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 08/13/2012 04:50 PM, kashdan wrote:
    > I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
    > Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?


    If you believe that Eric has expressed the opinion that C11 threads are
    off-topic in this forum, I'd appreciate citations. I can't remember any
    such incident.

    If you're referring to his opposition to POSIX-specific discussions of
    POSIX threads, that's entirely reasonable, since they are NOT "today
    part of standard C".
    Someone did recently post who had no interest in C11 threads, but only
    in POSIX threads, yet insisted on discussing his interests here, rather
    than in a POSIX-oriented forum. That might be what confused you on this
    issue.

    > It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
    > on threads. ...


    Has anyone asked a question about C11 threads that no one has answered?
    In the unlikely event that there are any examples, it could be because
    no one knows the answer to the question - the topic is still too new -
    but I'd expect that any such question would still have generated a lot
    of discussion here.

    > ... Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
    > comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
    > pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.


    As long as you are discussing them with the namespace removed form the
    identifier, and with the corresponding differences in semantics, it's
    entirely appropriate to discuss them here. There are differences, and
    pretending that there are not would be stupid.

    > People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?


    Some don't, but I don't think that's the problem. The problem is the
    failure of some posters to make the distinction between POSIX threads,
    which are better discussed in comp.unix.programmer or
    comp.programming.threads, and C11 threads, which are best discussed here.

    Note: a comparison between POSIX threads and C11 threads could
    reasonably be carried out either here or in either of those other two
    groups, or all three, for that matter. I'd look forward to such a
    discussion - I don't know enough about threading of any type to be sure
    of what those differences are, and I'd like to know.
     
    James Kuyper, Aug 13, 2012
    #5
  6. kashdan

    Mark Bluemel Guest

    On 13/08/2012 22:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >
    > I *really* don't think there's any "conspiracy of silence"; if there is,
    > nobody told me about it.


    That only proves you're not in the inner circle - if you'd care to join
    there is a small fee and a very embarassing initiationritual that you
    must undergo.
     
    Mark Bluemel, Aug 14, 2012
    #6
  7. kashdan

    Ansel Guest

    666 (was Re: Threads still offtopic?)

    Mark Bluemel wrote:
    > On 13/08/2012 22:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>
    >> I *really* don't think there's any "conspiracy of silence"; if there
    >> is, nobody told me about it.

    >
    > That only proves you're not in the inner circle - if you'd care to
    > join there is a small fee and a very embarassing initiationritual
    > that you must undergo.


    You forgot the part about getting the mark of the beast applied. What is the
    mark these day? A hot iron brand? A tattoo? Something else?
     
    Ansel, Aug 15, 2012
    #7
  8. kashdan

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    Re: 666

    "Ansel" <> writes:

    > Mark Bluemel wrote:
    >> On 13/08/2012 22:09, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I *really* don't think there's any "conspiracy of silence"; if there
    >>> is, nobody told me about it.

    >>
    >> That only proves you're not in the inner circle - if you'd care to
    >> join there is a small fee and a very embarassing initiationritual
    >> that you must undergo.

    >
    > You forgot the part about getting the mark of the beast applied. What is the
    > mark these day? A hot iron brand? A tattoo? Something else?


    RFID chip. Just like we've had implanted in our dogs....
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Aug 15, 2012
    #8
    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. nospam
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    340
    Tim Stephenson
    Oct 23, 2003
  2. anonymous
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    944
    BFlaherty
    Dec 6, 2003
  3. =?Utf-8?B?bG9uZG9uIGNhbGxpbmc=?=

    Offtopic: check the news.. Bombs across london

    =?Utf-8?B?bG9uZG9uIGNhbGxpbmc=?=, Jul 7, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    329
    Mark Rae
    Jul 7, 2005
  4. Carlos Albert
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    331
    =?Utf-8?B?RFdT?=
    Feb 6, 2006
  5. Alex Ostrikov
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,018
    Rob Williscroft
    Dec 7, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page