Warning to newbies

[spinoza1111]

Edward,

If, as it sounds, you gave up on C in 1991, why hang out in comp.lang.c?
The MS enthusiast who niggles at Mac users in Mac forums will be viewed
as a troll.  The same is true of many atheists in religious groups.

In brief, science is not religion. Criticism upsets believers, but if
C is computer science, then it is on-topic here to warn newbies that C
is not a safe language, and that unethical and unqualified people are
here.

 

[spinoza1111]

That is a very liberal interpretation of what Dijkstra said.

What part of "paraphrase" don't you understand?

For the record, here's the original quote:
"The problems of business administration in general and data base
management in particular are much too difficult for people that
think in IBMerese, compounded with sloppy English."

The C standard kiddies are talking "IBMerese at level 2" because like
IBM managers of yore, they use a language in which imprecise terms of
art replace actual thought. In IBMerese this was "management
information system": in Cerese it is "trap represetation" and
"sequence point".

Buzzwords, in fine.

The English used here is if anything even more sloppy than of yore.
Most posters are unable to construct sentences beyond a certain small
upper bound.

For example, they would like to construct the thought that they have a
Higher Self that they'd prefer to command the floor, and this Higher
Self (the correct understanding of a truth) is to be admired. They are
afraid to admit to weakness and complexity.

This results in sloppy English.

 

[spinoza1111]

None of those are mutually exclusive with the troll status you hold.


The C standard is not science. It does not claim to be science, let
alone "bogus" science. You are therefore talking about things that do
not exist. In that context, I believe the minotaurs should abandon C
for VB, and then you may focus on something constructive.

If the C standard is not science, what is it? Don't say "technology"
because technology has no standing unless its science + x.

You are focusing on all things irrelevant because you have nothing of
substance to say. The true way of a troll.

No, you need to be able to express yourself in writing for me to take
you seriously. In case you haven't noticed, writing is what we do
here.

...and that is your opinion.

Men learn in the military that in the face of force, any criticism is
"just an opinion". The problem is that the corporation is run on
military lines and the result is crap.

The only reason you know how to do that is because the language allows
you to.


Incorrect. This is not a math class, anyway.

It is astonishing that C programmers can say "that's math, I don't
know it, so it's irrevelant".

Wrong. The strictest language, one that demands operations will appear
in machine code in the order specified in source code, cannot be
optimized in the limited context of the optimizer you are concerning
yourself with. Perhaps you need to do some studying first, because
being published since '76 hasn't helped you much.

That's a fundamental error. A strict language is high level since it
specifies a computation. Machine language is not even language in this
sense. In case you haven't noticed, what we need is an international
language for communicating our intentions as to using computers. This
need has been denied by corporations and governments because their
intentions are evil.

Paraphrase all you want, it's still bs.


That's a write operation, not a read.

What part of read-write don't you understand?

With help from the minotaurs, sure.


Number


No, its use AND production causes an exception.

Not in all contexts.

The C standard adopts IEC 60559 definitions and conventions for
evaluation of mathematical expressions. Does it state the result, when
one or both operands are NaN, is undefined? And what is it with
"sensible environments" people seem to be invoking all the time? There
aren't any sensible environments, they're all figments of our
imagination!

The C standard is not my Bible. The mathematical fact is that NAN+1
has a perfectly well-defined value. It is NAN! The mathematical fact
is that infinity aleph null (a denumerable infinity) has a perfectly
well defined value. It is infinity aleph null!

 

[spinoza1111]

     Whatever his failings as a computer scientist (thirty years
to not quite finish a master's degree -- maybe in another thirty

Hey, asshole, I left because I had a family and worked for an employer
that thought it was cute when we worked sixty hours to meet deadlines
and wouldn't tuition reimburse. Why is it that regs like Seebs can
boast about not taking ANY computer science class WHATSOEVER, and why
will he be defended on the absurd basis that "Dijkstra didn't major in
CS"?

As Heathfield, who is not my ally or friend, has pointed out, a
"troll" does not post in good faith whereas I believe that "C
standardization" is intellectual fraud based on considerable
experience with C including assisting Nash with it. You use the word,
which is Nordic racism, because you're unqualified to discuss whether
C is a responsible language.

 

[Seebs]

Are you trying to convince the rest of us that "spinoza1111" is
a troll? Do you think that's necessary?

This is Usenet, where I regularly see people struggling to convince other
people of things like "computers mostly run on electricity" or "there
is no apostrophe in the third-person neuter possessive in English". I
can easily imagine people who are not convinced that Spinny is a troll.
(And honestly, I'm not yet entirely convinced that he's an *intentional*
troll.)

-s

 

[Michael Foukarakis]

     Whatever his failings as a computer scientist (thirty years
to not quite finish a master's degree -- maybe in another thirty
he'll not quite get a clue), he's a skilled and successful troll.
Observe that he's trolled *you*, and ponder what that means.

What can I say, I love indulging everybody (inc. trolls). It's a
particularly nice way to fill my Sunday afternoons during StarCraft
breaks.

 

[spinoza1111]

This is Usenet, where I regularly see people struggling to convince other
people of things like "computers mostly run on electricity" or "there

Babbage's machine is now working in London and it works with manual
power.

is no apostrophe in the third-person neuter possessive in English".  I

I suppose you mean the singular because there is no neuter plural. You
forgot to mention that the predicative form differs in the plural. You
didn't give examples which means you are not concerned with mentoring
but with reassuring yourself that you are "smart", which you're not.

"It is its hard drive." "The hard drive is its."

Neuter possessive is rare because in former times, ownership was not
something of which objects apart from animals and higher plants had.

The point is, jerk face, that "anything you say can be used against
you". The idiotic screeds you unleash on people rely on something of
which you're not consciously aware: that language is polysemic.
Therefore you waste our time when you could be taking remedial
computer science and reading.

I don't see people struggling in any eleemosynary fashion to help
others. I see instead thugs like you deliberately or accidentally
(through serious deficiencies in basic reading skills) showing off a
false erudition, for example, by mocking people who know that
electronic computing is an accident and that there is more than one
example of purely mechanical devices, as well as fluidic devices.

You're the typical break room creep of the corporation
A sodden little twerp.

 

[Michael Foukarakis]

If the C standard is not science, what is it? Don't say "technology"
because technology has no standing unless its science + x.

Send an email to ISO, and find out for yourself.

No, you need to be able to express yourself in writing for me to take
you seriously. In case you haven't noticed, writing is what we do
here.

Since you're able to reply to me, I will assume that you can be
considered, for all intents and purposes, able to read what I write
but not comprehend it 100%.

Men learn in the military that in the face of force, any criticism is
"just an opinion". The problem is that the corporation is run on
military lines and the result is crap.

Not if you are the corporation. But you're obviously not. Tough luck,
eh?

It is astonishing that C programmers can say "that's math, I don't
know it, so it's irrevelant".

Not irrelevant, incorrect. At what point did you abandon elementary
school?

That's a fundamental error. A strict language is high level since it
specifies a computation. Machine language is not even language in this
sense. In case you haven't noticed, what we need is an international
language for communicating our intentions as to using computers. This
need has been denied by corporations and governments because their
intentions are evil.

You are assuming a collective intent behind the operations of a
collective, a concept on which I do not subscribe.

What part of read-write don't you understand?

The dash.

Number

Whatever, who am I to break your bubble?

Not in all contexts.

You mean, "it is ignored in some contexts". In that case, yes. But you
still got your facts wrong.

The C standard is not my Bible. The mathematical fact is that NAN+1
has a perfectly well-defined value. It is NAN! The mathematical fact
is that infinity aleph null (a denumerable infinity) has a perfectly
well defined value. It is infinity aleph null!

Again, tough luck. Computers lack in many respects against some
idealized concepts of mathematics (continuous value space, for
instance).

Concluding, I must ask that you reply to me in the same spirit of
ignoring what I actually wrote, so that I, in turn, can reply and have
something to do today, because work is so slow. Thanks in advance.

 

[spinoza1111]

This is Usenet, where I regularly see people struggling to convince other
people of things like "computers mostly run on electricity" or "there
is no apostrophe in the third-person neuter possessive in English".  I
can easily imagine people who are not convinced that Spinny is a troll.
(And honestly, I'm not yet entirely convinced that he's an *intentional*
troll.)

-s

In a moment of stunning integrity, Richard Heathfield has reasoned
from the definition of the troll to the conclusion that I'm not, since
he knows that I believe what I post, and he believes with good reason
that I don't post to get attention. You on the other hand seek to
label people.

 

[spinoza1111]

Send an email to ISO, and find out for yourself.



Since you're able to reply to me, I will assume that you can be
considered, for all intents and purposes, able to read what I write
but not comprehend it 100%.



Not if you are the corporation. But you're obviously not. Tough luck,
eh?

Most intelligent people I know work for schools, non-profits,
foundations, small businesses and start-ups. There are lots and lots
of alternatives to working for a corporation. The corporation is the
natural home of the creepy nerd.

Not irrelevant, incorrect. At what point did you abandon elementary
school?







You are assuming a collective intent behind the operations of a
collective, a concept on which I do not subscribe.

"On?" Whatever, Preposition Rainbow. OK, some corporations are
altruistic. What are they? Where are they?

The dash.



Whatever, who am I to break your bubble?



You mean, "it is ignored in some contexts". In that case, yes. But you
still got your facts wrong.







Again, tough luck. Computers lack in many respects against some
idealized concepts of mathematics (continuous value space, for
instance).

Not even grammatical ("against"?) and wrong. Computers are constructed
to follow the laws of finite mathematics, therefore they are well
understood with mathematics unless broken, in which they must be
understood with physics. Your job as a programmer is to understand
them mathematically. Clearly you do not.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

This is Usenet, where I regularly see people struggling to convince other
people of things like "computers mostly run on electricity" or "there
is no apostrophe in the third-person neuter possessive in English". I
can easily imagine people who are not convinced that Spinny is a troll.
(And honestly, I'm not yet entirely convinced that he's an *intentional*
troll.)

I'm sure he's not an intentional troll. He's sincere in what he
espouses. He really believes he's a genius, a philanthropist, an
artist, etc. And that you and Heathfield are monstrously evil. He's
Don Quixote, but not so charming.

But what that means to us is that he cannot be reformed, there is no
point in even trying to argue with him regarding any of his many wacky
conspiracy theories. Waging flame wars on Usenet is the only method of
social interaction he has left. Obviously he's ended up teaching in a
cram school in Asia because they'll take any warm body with an
American passport, after making himself unemployable in any other
profession by his inability to interact with people in a civil way.
Young children are unthreatening to his ego so he's probably quite
pleasant to them. Clever teenagers though might be a problem.

 

[spinoza1111]

Babbage's machine is now working in London and it works with manual
power.


I suppose you mean the singular because there is no neuter plural. You
forgot to mention that the predicative form differs in the plural. You
didn't give examples which means you are not concerned with mentoring
but with reassuring yourself that you are "smart", which you're not.

"It is its hard drive." "The hard drive is its."

Neuter possessive is rare because in former times, ownership was not
something of which objects apart from animals and higher plants had.

should read "something which". Yes, I notice my errors and correct
them.

 

[James]

[...]

Why is it that regs like Seebs can
boast about not taking ANY computer science class WHATSOEVER, and why
will he be defended on the absurd basis that "Dijkstra didn't major in
CS"?

As Heathfield, who is not my ally or friend, has pointed out, a
"troll" does not post in good faith whereas I believe that "C
standardization" is intellectual fraud based on considerable
experience with C including assisting Nash with it.

What was Mr. Nash having trouble with?

 

[Michael Foukarakis]

Most intelligent people I know work for schools, non-profits,
foundations, small businesses and start-ups. There are lots and lots
of alternatives to working for a corporation. The corporation is the
natural home of the creepy nerd.

I have plenty of counterexamples, but let's face it, you aren't
interested.

"On?" Whatever, Preposition Rainbow. OK, some corporations are
altruistic. What are they? Where are they?

English isn't my first language, so I'm grateful for any and all
learning opportunities you're willing to provide me with, Grammatical
Father Figure.

Your point about "altruistic" (what?) corporations is interesting.
Care to do some research and present it to us? A Powerpoint
presentation would do just fine. 45 slides bare minimum. Assume an
illiterate viewing crowd.

Not even grammatical ("against"?) and wrong. Computers are constructed
to follow the laws of finite mathematics, therefore they are well
understood with mathematics unless broken, in which they must be
understood with physics. Your job as a programmer is to understand
them mathematically. Clearly you do not.

You're always assuming, trying to present yourself as wise or
insightful, but you're really not.

 

[Nick Keighley]

What you do is not science, however there still is a computer science.

I've got a degree in computer science (Computational Science to be
precise) and I don't think it's a science.

<snip>

 

[gwowen]

Bad C advice from a C-hating moron. If Mr Nash had asked an expert, he'd
have got far, far, far better advice.

I don't know whether you've noticed yet, but I've more or less stopped
doing that. Why? Well, I'd tell you, only it would probably count as
more "facilitation".

So this is "more or less stopped" looks like? I'm *astonished* I
didn't notice. You just can't resist can you?

Your pastor must be so proud.

 

[gwowen]

Can't resist what? Posting to Usenet? Well, it seems you can't either. So?

Mocking, taunting, baiting and insulting Edward Nilges.

You're not good at sarcasm. I suggest you either avoid it or take a class..

I wasn't being sarcastic. For a religious man, you show a colossal
amount of malice to Nilges.

PS: This is the point where you pretend to killfile me. Again.

 

[Mark]

In brief, science is not religion. Criticism upsets believers, but if
C is computer science, then it is on-topic here to warn newbies that C
is not a safe language, and that unethical and unqualified people are
here.

That sounds like you're treating it like a religion.

You sound like the man preaching loudly in the street about the wages of
sin.

C isn't safe and, while many are much safer, nor is any language. They
all screw up in interesting ways if used incorrectly. I'd never suggest
C as a first language and (these days) it's not a language I'd suggest
for many people at all.

It has its place, though.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Wrong. The strictest language, one that demands operations will appear
in machine code in the order specified in source code, cannot be

This is a strawman version of what it means to have a defined evaluation
order.

In reality, language specifications which define evaluation order do not
typically make ridiculous demands about what has to appear in machine
language in what way.

What order does is it helps to establish what the code /means/; it
doesn't say what the actual machine must /do/ (other than compute
the implied result, and all the visible effects in the implied order).

Actual computations can be significantly reordered even if
abstract computation is strictly ordered.

C in fact has a strict evaluation order among expressions that are
divided by sequence points. Yet, modern compilers aggressively rearrange
computation across these boundaries.

The belief that unspecified subexpression and side effect order
bolsters optimization is laughably false.

 

[spinoza1111]

James wrote:

The evaluation of an expression at compile time. The intent of the
expression was to test whether a number exceeded long precision. The
Microsoft compiler stayed inside long precision, the Borland compiler
did not.

Bad C advice from a C-hating moron. If Mr Nash had asked an expert, he'd
have got far, far, far better advice.

His problem was fully solved, so you don't know what you're talking
about. Later, he converted to using Mathematica because to use C for
his own purposes he'd had to "reinvent the wheel".