C: The Complete Meta-Nonsense

[Chris McDonald]

Schildt taught things that worked on PC platforms which were his
focus. He may have been narrowly focused but this was an attribute of
a genre of computer books whose customer basis did not like, did not
comprehend, and would not recommend K & R style books.

How can an author have a (possibly) narrow focus, and yet still entitle
their work "The Complete Reference"?

Either the author is deficient in their knowledge of what amounts to
something being 'complete', or is dishonest is search of greater sales.

Would "C: A Partial Reference, For A Subset of Computing Environments,
With A Number of Typographical and Comprehension Errors Which May Or
May Not Have An Outcome On The Success Of Your Programming" have sold as well?

 

[Chris McDonald]

Or assumes at the time that people read about the context complete refers
to.

Yes; I don't believe that I was wrong, when I read the book many years
ago, that the book would have been describing the complete C language,
and without error. Was my expectation unreasonable or my understanding of
what 'complete' meant (it should be near 'clear' in the dictionary, right)?
I am glad that I borrowed it from a library, and didn't spend money on it.

It's not all a conspiracy to argue with big heads in c.l.c you know.

Unsure what you mean by this statement.

What is your point?

My point is that the title was misleading and suggested authority beyond
the author's ability and knowledge.
Was my point unclear to you?

Did you make the same points about Dicky "unleashing" C? Was it on a
lead before his book?

Not in this thread about this book and its author, no.
I have not read RH's book and, thus, don't think I can comment on it.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I've only been posting here for a week, and I don't think I've seen you
say /anything/ about C.

As I've demonstrated many times over the years, if you apply the
combination of the rules that are held in CLC (*) with the general rules
of newgroups in general (**), you find that literally nothing is
acceptable as a post (***), other than a) the constant topicality BS
that we all love so much (it is what keeps us coming back, day after
day) and b) so-called "language lawyering" - i.e., discussing what the
meaning of the word "is" is.

(*) If it isn't mentioned in the C standards documents, you are not
allowed to post about it here.
(**) If it is covered in the commonly available resources (documents,
FAQs, etc) then you really shouldn't post about it here. Generally,
posts, in any newsgroup, that re-ask questions coverered in FAQs,
etc, are frowned upon.

Well, you can see at a glance now, that the combination of (*) and (**)
means that nothing is allowed, since anything that would be allowed by
(*) is disallowed by (**) - assuming that the C standards documents are
considered to be part of the commonly available resources.

And finally: (***) By way of terminology, that which is not "acceptable
as a post" is referred to, as a term of art, as "off topic".

Therefore, you see, it is not possible for me to post about C (without
running afoul of the topicality police).

Taking this argument one step further, let me say that there *is* an "out".
The "out" is to take the view that the C standards documents are like
the medieval Bible - that is, that the document exists, but it cannot be
read by the common man. It must be interpreted by language lawyers.
Think William Tyndale - who was burned at the stake for the crime of
making the holy script accessible to the masses. Methinks that the regs
here would do the same with the C standards documents, if they only
could.

This "out" allows us to say that we can discuss things covered in the
C standards documents, since it is assumed that those standards
documents are not accessible to the masses. Hence, language lawyering
blooms as an acceptable discource in CLC.

Yes, people can get a bit pernickety - and clearly people have let the
constant sniping at them get to them. But if people keep /asking/ about
i=i++ (as someone has done in the last couple of days) what are they
meant to do but answer?

I think a lot of the i=i++ posts are plants - by reg socks.
But in any case, if they were at all serious about wanting to reduce the
noise level, they could (and should) just ignore them. As they
supposedly do with the "trolls". After all, the answers to these
questions *are* covered in the available resources (FAQs, standards
documents, etc)

As I say, I'm a genuine newcomer here, and I can see who is adding value
and who is a source of pure noise. And I'm afraid you're on the right
side of that division at the moment.

Yes. I am on the right side of it.