ANN An ansic90 version of lcc-win

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield a @C3{A9}crit :
There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that
community, it is astonishingly rare to see an article
requesting that lcc-win32 be made to conform with C90, and
in fact the *only* such requests I remember seeing have been
by the teapot troll, and nobody with a brain takes him
seriously.

Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win
conforms to no standard" because I failed to reject //
comments. Now, I have developed a version of lcc-win that
conforms to ansi C90.

You are confusing "stating that a compiler does not conform to some
standard" with "request to make the compiler conform to some standard".

You're reading something into the posting that it doesn't say.
It may be that Jacob took Richard's statement as a request, and
it may be that he didn't, but certainly his posting doesn't say
that he took it as a request. So it isn't clear just who is
confused in this instance.

When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". [snip]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a statement
that lcc-win doesn't conform as an indication that
there is some desire that it conform. I think I
would take it that way if I were in his shoes. That
doesn't mean the earlier statement was taken as
a request.

It's not a reasonable assumption given that Richard has also
repeatedly stated that he was *not* requesting a C90-complaint
version of lcc-win.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

jacob navia <[email protected]> writes:

I don't currently have a system on which I can install it.

I am guessing from your newsreader that you do have a Linux system.
lcc-win32 runs fine under wine.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I am guessing from your newsreader that you do have a Linux system.
lcc-win32 runs fine under wine.

Then I might give it a try, time permitting.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Neither do I, but I can see why some might think so. My dictionary
gives two senses of "pompous", one of which is "inappropriately grand
and flowery; pretentious". There is a considerable body of evidence
to suggest that there are those who consider a Usenet article with
correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to be inappropriately
grand and flowery.

There are plenty of other posters who strive to use
correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but whose
postings are not accused of being pompous.

ObTopic: I consider conformance to be a Boolean property. Either an
implementation conforms to the Standard or it doesn't. Nevertheless,
I certainly recognise that one might argue for conformance being a
scalar quantity, such that one implementation X can be "more
conforming" than another implementation Y, even if X has conformance
issues. Views?

In the absence of a clearly defined objective test, I don't
think it's useful to measure conformance with a binary
metric. A scalar metric is better, but for comparing
implementations that actually exist it seems better still if
the conformance metric is allowed to be a general lattice.
Implementation A and implementation B might both be "more
conforming" than implementation C, but still be such that
neither A nor B is "more conforming" than the other.

 

[Seebs]

There are plenty of other posters who strive to use
correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but whose
postings are not accused of being pompous.

That could be. It doesn't mean that there's anything he could reasonably
do which would "cure" the problem.

People accuse me of all sorts of stuff. Actually, I'm autistic, and my
brain lacks certain "normal" core functionality. Most of the things they
accuse me of, in fact, are not only not accurate, but essentially impossible
for me to accomplish.

I see no obvious reason to believe that Richard Heathfield is doing anything
that justifies the complaints you refer to; rather, I think people are just
expecting him to behave in particular ways without any obvious justification.

-s

 

[Tim Rentsch]

You misunderstand me - I meant only that whether or not lcc-win should
conform to C90 is a decision that jacob is perfectly free to make for
himself.

Yes, I understood your earlier statement to say something
different. But okay.

If his target customer base wants it, that's certainly a
strong incentive to provide it, but it's also an incentive he can
ignore if he chooses. I wouldn't recommend that he pay any attention
to Mr. Teapot's requests; because that guy's just a heckler - and I'm
not aware of any one else here requesting C90 conformance for lcc-win.
If there has indeed been "popular demand" for such a change, it must
have occurred outside of this newsgroup.

I believe Jacob is right to think that there is interest,
even if there haven't been requests. If he chooses to
phrase that perceived interest as "popular demand,"
well, it might not be phrasing that I'd choose, but
I don't think it's confusing or misleading or especially
less appropriate than lots of other comments made in
other newsgroup postings.

However, since you bring up the topic, I do not agree that the fact
that a compiler has achieved full C90 conformance is of significant
interest, [snip elaboration].

I didn't say significant interest, I said potentially of
interest. Certainly enough to be worth posting.

C99 conformance of lcc-win32 is a much more newsworthy event.
Absolutely.

lcc-win's C90 conformance. I would think anyone in the comp.lang.c
community would be pleased by these events, or at least not be
discouraging about them transpiring.

I don't want to discourage such developments, though I think his time
would have been better spent adding an optional full-conformance mode
to the current version of the compiler, rather than to an old version
of it. [snip elaboration]

I might agree with that assessment, but I think that it's his
call to make.

Even better would have been to improve the C99 conformance of his
current version. The thing that worries me is that he may have wasted
his time on C90 conformance because he mispercieved comments about the
non-conformance of his compiler as requests that it be made
conforming; the comment of his quoted above strongly supports that
suspicion.

It seems like a better way to channel such a reaction would have
been to respond to his earlier posting with "That's great news,
Jacob. Good job! Are you going to start working now on full C99
and/or C90 conformance for your current compiler?" It's
disappointing that so many people have focused on some negative
aspects rather than emphasizing the positive aspects present
in this event.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

On the other hand, I've tried compensating for it, and have discovered
(a) that it doesn't do any good, and (b) the tone normally ends up
sounding rather condescending, which is something I do actually try
to avoid.

I'm sorry, I should have phrased that better. I
didn't mean to imply that you haven't tried
compensating. My apologies.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Richard Heathfield a @C3{A9}crit :
There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that
community, it is astonishingly rare to see an article
requesting that lcc-win32 be made to conform with C90, and
in fact the *only* such requests I remember seeing have been
by the teapot troll, and nobody with a brain takes him
seriously.

Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win
conforms to no standard" because I failed to reject //
comments. Now, I have developed a version of lcc-win that
conforms to ansi C90.

You are confusing "stating that a compiler does not conform to some
standard" with "request to make the compiler conform to some standard".

You're reading something into the posting that it doesn't say.
It may be that Jacob took Richard's statement as a request, and
it may be that he didn't, but certainly his posting doesn't say
that he took it as a request. So it isn't clear just who is
confused in this instance.

When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". [snip]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a statement
that lcc-win doesn't conform as an indication that
there is some desire that it conform. I think I
would take it that way if I were in his shoes. That
doesn't mean the earlier statement was taken as
a request.

It's not a reasonable assumption given that Richard has also
repeatedly stated that he was *not* requesting a C90-complaint
version of lcc-win.

Do you think having a desire is synonymous with making a request?

Do you think saying you're not making a request is synonomous
with not having a desire?

Assuming the answer to both of the previous question is "yes",
do you also think everyone else shares your opinion on these
questions?

 

[Tim Rentsch]

That could be. It doesn't mean that there's anything he could reasonably
do which would "cure" the problem.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that there is. I was just making
an observation that suggests the proposed explanation might
not be sufficient just by itself.

People accuse me of all sorts of stuff. Actually, I'm autistic, and my
brain lacks certain "normal" core functionality. Most of the things they
accuse me of, in fact, are not only not accurate, but essentially impossible
for me to accomplish.

That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
about it?

I see no obvious reason to believe that Richard Heathfield is doing anything
that justifies the complaints you refer to; rather, I think people are just
expecting him to behave in particular ways without any obvious justification.

I'm interested in learning what makes the reactions happen.
Part of the reason for that is anthropological curiosity,
and part of it is relating it to my own experiences.
Certainly it's happened to me that some people have reacted
negatively to me for no particular reasons that I can
discern; it would be good to get a better handle on
that, not that it happens all the time but understanding
it better could help a lot in some situations.

 

[Keith Thompson]

When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". [snip]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a statement
that lcc-win doesn't conform as an indication that
there is some desire that it conform. I think I
would take it that way if I were in his shoes. That
doesn't mean the earlier statement was taken as
a request.

It's not a reasonable assumption given that Richard has also
repeatedly stated that he was *not* requesting a C90-complaint
version of lcc-win.

Do you think having a desire is synonymous with making a request?

Do you think saying you're not making a request is synonomous
with not having a desire?

Assuming the answer to both of the previous question is "yes",
do you also think everyone else shares your opinion on these
questions?

Who cares?

Richard Heathfield had stated, entirely correctly, that lcc-win32
did not fully conform to C90. I don't believe he ever said or
implied either that he was requesting a C90-conforming version
or that he desired a C90-conforming version. And even if he had,
that would not constitute "popular demand". I find it difficult
to believe that jacob would go to the effort of creating and
releasing a C90-conforming version of lcc-win just because Richard
Heathfield asked for it (and no, nobody has suggested that that's
what happened).

When jacob announced, at the top of this thread, a C90-conforming
version of lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand".
I asked him, just out of curiosity, what he meant by that phrase,
since I had seen no such popular demand here.

jacob is certainly under no obligation to answer my question, and
in fact he has not done so. That's ok; it's not something I need
to know.

And now we have this long thread nitpicking every nuance of every
word.

Can we please go back to talking about C?

 

[Tim Rentsch]

When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". [snip]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a statement
that lcc-win doesn't conform as an indication that
there is some desire that it conform. I think I
would take it that way if I were in his shoes. That
doesn't mean the earlier statement was taken as
a request.

It's not a reasonable assumption given that Richard has also
repeatedly stated that he was *not* requesting a C90-complaint
version of lcc-win.

Do you think having a desire is synonymous with making a request?

Do you think saying you're not making a request is synonomous
with not having a desire?

Assuming the answer to both of the previous question is "yes",
do you also think everyone else shares your opinion on these
questions?

Who cares?

Richard Heathfield had stated, entirely correctly, that lcc-win32
did not fully conform to C90. I don't believe he ever said or
implied either that he was requesting a C90-conforming version
or that he desired a C90-conforming version. And even if he had,
that would not constitute "popular demand". I find it difficult
to believe that jacob would go to the effort of creating and
releasing a C90-conforming version of lcc-win just because Richard
Heathfield asked for it (and no, nobody has suggested that that's
what happened).

When jacob announced, at the top of this thread, a C90-conforming
version of lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand".
I asked him, just out of curiosity, what he meant by that phrase,
since I had seen no such popular demand here.

jacob is certainly under no obligation to answer my question, and
in fact he has not done so. That's ok; it's not something I need
to know.

And now we have this long thread nitpicking every nuance of every
word.

Can we please go back to talking about C?

I thought it might be helpful if another perspective
were presented; I was just trying to explain that
perspective. Following the response above I'm
willing to let the matter drop.

 

[Seebs]

That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
about it?

Not very good ones. There's some decent material in full-length books.

My general preference is to recommend the Elizabeth Moon fiction book
"The Speed of Dark". Read that, and then imagine that the main character
seems *perfectly reasonable* to me. It was really relaxing reading a book
where the character observed events rather than elaborate stories about
the events in which motives were invented from whole cloth.

I'm interested in learning what makes the reactions happen.
Part of the reason for that is anthropological curiosity,
and part of it is relating it to my own experiences.
Certainly it's happened to me that some people have reacted
negatively to me for no particular reasons that I can
discern; it would be good to get a better handle on
that, not that it happens all the time but understanding
it better could help a lot in some situations.

The biggest underlying thing, I think: In many cultures, there are
many deferential status cues but very few explicit cues for high
status; rather, high status is inferred when you do not emit
deferential cues. People whose brains naturally pick up status cues
are likely to perceive someone who omits them as "arrogant" or "pompous",
but it's extremely hard to emit the right deferential cues in the right
ways so as not to come across as condescending.

I can usually do it, but then, I spent >5 years doing technical support,
and developed a lot of specialized skills from it.

-s

 

[Antoninus Twink]

the tone normally ends up sounding rather condescending, which is
something I do actually try to avoid.

If that's true then I flinch to imagine what it would be like if you
went out of your way to try to be condescending.

You'll be saying next that you try to avoid being arrogant.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

There are plenty of other posters who strive to use correct spelling,
punctuation, and grammar, but whose postings are not accused of being
pompous.

EXACTLY.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
about it?

Read through some of Keith Thomson's posting history here, and you'll be
able to work out for yourself what it entails.

Note that I don't say this facetiously or as an attack - it's just an
objective fact that Kiki is a perfect textbook illustration of the
effects of autism.

Many programmers are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and there's
nothing wrong with that. However, most of them learn when they're young
to make some compensation for it, and "act along" with "normal social
expectations" even if it doesn't come naturally to them. E.g. they'll
learn to recognize that someone is looking unhappy, and make a point of
asking if they're OK and saying some sympathetic words. For most people,
this is human instinct; for them it's learned behavior; but they realize
at an intellectual level that there are significant advantages to
following that particular behavior.

Keith is interesting because he clearly hasn't tried to fit in like
this.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Not very good ones.  There's some decent material in full-length books.

My general preference is to recommend the Elizabeth Moon fiction book
"The Speed of Dark".  Read that, and then imagine that the main character
seems *perfectly reasonable* to me.  It was really relaxing reading a book
where the character observed events rather than elaborate stories about
the events in which motives were invented from whole cloth.  

is this any good?
www.amazon.com/Curious-Incident-Dog-Night-Time/dp/1400032717

 

[Seebs]

Many programmers are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and there's
nothing wrong with that. However, most of them learn when they're young
to make some compensation for it, and "act along" with "normal social
expectations" even if it doesn't come naturally to them. E.g. they'll
learn to recognize that someone is looking unhappy, and make a point of
asking if they're OK and saying some sympathetic words. For most people,
this is human instinct; for them it's learned behavior; but they realize
at an intellectual level that there are significant advantages to
following that particular behavior.

Yup. But sometimes they continue to disregard the rules which *aren't*
useful.

Keith is interesting because he clearly hasn't tried to fit in like
this.

Or hasn't been successful by some peoples' standards, and has by others.
I'd regard him as courteous and helpful. I'd say you are much further
from healthy social patterns than he is.

-s

 

[Seebs]

is this any good?
www.amazon.com/Curious-Incident-Dog-Night-Time/dp/1400032717

I found it interesting. Some people disliked it a great deal, but I liked
it.

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

You're absolutely right. I rather regret making the point in that way. Email
isn't face to face, so someone can't tell from your tone of voice that you
are teasing.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

There is a difference between the above and being an arrogant arse.

Whichever of the above you might be referring to, I agree with
you, but that's completely incidental to the point I was making,
which has nothing to do with whether RH is or is not pompous (or
any other such derogatory label).