C the complete nonsense

[Nick Keighley]

I
think it would be best if you stopped wasting your time on Schildt
commentary, however.
can we gather up all the examples of errors and post them on a web
site?
No. [snip odd politics]

so were those criticisms of schildt's book incorrect?

Yes. There were 20 and 14 were incorrect. For the past ten years, the
document has described the wrong edition.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about the "pick a random page and list the errors" game
that various people have been playing on these threads. I notice you
ignore most of them. is that because they are correct?


I wish you wouldn't split sentences like that. I've moved the line
below from above.

<snip>

 

[Seebs]

This is, as always, wrong.

1. There is nothing "wrong" about describing the edition that was out
when the document was written. No claim was made that the document was
about the most recent edition.
2. We still haven't seen Nilges apologize for the outright lie of claiming
that the page was based on the first edition.
3. He *dislikes* 14 out of 20 -- he hasn't shown that they're wrong. But
wait! Even if they were, that would still be six severe, fundamental, errors
in Schildt's book, none of which should have ever been made by someone
competent to write such a book.

I'm talking about the "pick a random page and list the errors" game
that various people have been playing on these threads. I notice you
ignore most of them. is that because they are correct?

I think he ignores them because they aren't opportunities to flame me.

-s

 

[Nick Keighley]

This is the basic problem. You define what it is you want to work with
and you don't play well with others. In fact, my research has
confirmed that you have a problem working with others in general. I
won't go into any detail on this in order to respect your privacy in a
way mine has not been respected by you; suffice it to say I have
examined material in the public view only.

You believe that using Linux makes you special. This is in fact a form
of white racism which has infected computing because the dirty little
secret is that by staying away from Windows you stay away from Windows
users, who are increasingly and in a global sense nonwhite, while
Linux's affiliation with universities codes this in your mind as a
"white" system.

isn't Linux widely used by non-white people? Isn't Linux's I18N on a
par with Windows'?

You also demand a "white" privilege of defining the rules of success.

<snip>

aren't you white?

 

[Seebs]

isn't Linux widely used by non-white people? Isn't Linux's I18N on a
par with Windows'?

No offense, but is there any point in responding to a rant that illucid
with factual points? I have no idea where Nilges gets the idea that I
think using Linux makes me special. I don't even particularly like Linux.

But the pure noise component really dominates any kind of argumentation here.
What does "in a global sense" mean? It means that Nilges has access to a
keyboard, and not much else.

aren't you white?

Well, to be fair, doesn't he consistently demand the privilege of defining
the rules of success? So I guess that's at least consistent with his other
behavior.

Me, I have no interest in "defining the rules of success". I am a
descriptive, not a prescriptive, student of programming. If something really
does work, I don't care whether it matches any particular theory. (Contrast
with Nilges, whose cover story for not knowing how switch() works is that it's
not properly "structured".) When I criticize non-portability, it's not
because I have any particular preference for portability *in and of itself*;
it's because my experience has taught me that portability offers a very
substantial return on time and effort invested in it, and in particular,
that writing for portability from the beginning is much cheaper than trying
to bolt it on later.

The rules of success are that if what you're doing works and allows you to
be successful, apparently that's a way of succeeding. No interest in defining
that; it strikes me as a ludicrous effort. It's like demanding the privilege
of defining the laws of physics. You don't get a vote; physics is out there,
and you can cope or not.

-s

 

[Ian Collins]

isn't Linux widely used by non-white people? Isn't Linux's I18N on a
par with Windows'?

Thanks for exposing that one Nick, it's a classic of its kind.

I wonder if the plonker knows where the first government drive to
replace Windows with Linux happened?

<BBC mode>
By the way, other opensource operating systems are available.
</BBC mode>

 

[Nick Keighley]

[naviaisms]

This is not the kind of attitude that will lead people to want to use
your container library.

it seems an odd way to judge software. Do you only buy software from
people you like. presumably the success of the open source movement is
down entirely to Stallman's wit and charm.

 

[Tim Streater]

The rules of success are that if what you're doing works and allows you to
be successful, apparently that's a way of succeeding. No interest in defining
that; it strikes me as a ludicrous effort. It's like demanding the privilege
of defining the laws of physics. You don't get a vote; physics is out there,
and you can cope or not.

In short: Spinny is unable to deal with reality.

 

[spinoza1111]

Thanks for exposing that one Nick, it's a classic of its kind.

I wonder if the plonker knows where the first government drive to
replace Windows with Linux happened?

Uh, when IBM realized that it could steal Linux from The Santa Cruz
Operation circa 1995, and use its lawyers to get away with the theft
of intellectual property and intellectual production?

 

[Walter Banks]

No, this is a copycat drive-by that was instigated by Seebach's
garbage and in the same superficial style. It is very familiar as
having its own errors and is grandstanding. These two half-literate
attacks constitute the sole source of the Schildt canard. NO computer
scientist or author of note has participated in the Schildt canard.

The point that seems to be missed is Schildt for a decade or so
produced formula books, a harlequin romance novel version of
language reference manuals. Most as expected have little new or
novel technical content and when judged as a reference fail because
of inaccurate and misleading information mostly it appears due to
the authors limited in depth knowledge of his subject..

Out of the 25 or so titles more than half are not recommended
by ACCU that was focused on reviewing programming related
books.

 

[Ian Collins]

Uh, when IBM realized that it could steal Linux from The Santa Cruz
Operation circa 1995, and use its lawyers to get away with the theft
of intellectual property and intellectual production?

I see he doesn't, well that's no surprise for one who lacks the nouse to
trim his farcical posts.

 

[spinoza1111]

spinoza1111wrote:


The point that seems to be missed is Schildt for a decade or so
produced formula books, a harlequin romance novel version of
language reference manuals. Most as expected have little new or
novel technical content and when judged as a reference fail because
of inaccurate and misleading information mostly it appears due to
the authors limited in depth knowledge of his subject..

Yes, and Abe Lincoln had only McGuffey's and Blackstone, which wasn't
even about American law. The question isn't the book. It's what's done
with it, and also what the free market decides.

Out of the 25 or so titles more than half are not recommended
by ACCU that was focused on reviewing programming related
books.

Even if this is true, the guy has two rights:

1. Freedom of speech under the US Constitution, the constitutions of
most developed countries, and the UN declaration of human rights.

2. The right of privacy under the Ninth Amendment of the US
Constitution which includes freedom from harassment by "undue"
exposure, where "undue" in the US legal system is defined by the
ordinary person's expectations.

In Schildt's case, a jury, save a jury composed of linux dweebs, would
agree that in proportion to his "errors" his treatment has been
"undue". Maliciously "cruel and unusual" behavior of Schildt's enemies
is idemnified and forgiven. Stupid errors such as "the heap is a DOS
term" by mob leaders are idemnified and forgiven. But in this mob
action, nothing Herb says is either idemnified, nor forgiven.

One meaning of the word "unusual" in the Eighth amendment was that if
judges were permitted the wide range of punishments they were
permitted in Britain during the 18th century, it was easy for the
punishment to be out of scale with respect to the crime (favored
defendants would get jail, less favored, transportation, and the
friendless, a hanging). It meant that a silent, vicious law of the
jungle would apply to real people and be called law.

Schildt needs to be spared the law of the jungle. If you don't like
his books, don't buy them, and rate them low on Amazon by all means.
But if you can't write and don't program well, you look like a
malignant fool and mob member when you start this shit. Your precious
"freedom of speech" is being marshaled by a Fascist desire to control
thought and the purchases of others who don't use Linux...perhaps
because they don't like using virtual slave labor and command line
stupidity.

It's obscene, this way in which "libertarians" turn out for mob action
so often, as if their own lack of superego development, which causes
them to be permissive, forgiving, and liberatarian with respect to
their own low achievement and immoral behavior (as in the unseemly way
in which Peter so swiftly forgave himself for being off by one in a
one line program) causes this rage to punish others and so magically
seek eradicate or alleviate their own weakness and evil. It's daemonic.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

Canard, no. Recommended against, several.
Seebach
Feather
Summit
All on record.

On the other hand, which "computer scientist or author of note" has
given a positive review of his books?

That's all you need to balance the scales.

Until then, the "reception" Schildt's books received is defined by
those who actually bothered to read and assess them, and they all
found the books seriously flawed. And Wikipedia's article, which
somehow obsesses you, properly says that.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Yes, and Abe Lincoln had only McGuffey's and Blackstone, which wasn't
even about American law. The question isn't the book. It's what's done
with it, and also what the free market decides.


Even if this is true, the guy has two rights:

1.  Freedom of speech under the US Constitution, the constitutions of
most developed countries, and the UN declaration of human rights.

yes he has freedom of speech. So do the people who criticise his
book(s)

2.  The right of privacy under the Ninth Amendment of the US
Constitution which includes freedom from harassment by "undue"
exposure, where "undue" in the US legal system is defined by the
ordinary person's expectations.

shug. He published a book. The book is publicly available and I dodn't
see how it breaches privacy to read it and criticise it. We aren't
going throgh his bins (trash) or pointing long lenses at his bedroom.

In Schildt's case, a jury, save a jury composed of linux dweebs, would
agree that in proportion to his "errors" his treatment has been
"undue".

I suspect an average person would find both the book and the critique
incomprehensible.

Maliciously "cruel and unusual" behavior of Schildt's enemies
is idemnified and forgiven. Stupid errors such as "the heap is a DOS
term" by mob leaders are idemnified and forgiven. But in this mob
action, nothing Herb says is either idemnified, nor forgiven.

if he or his publishers had acceptted criticism early on and published
errata (maybe online even!) it would probably saved a lot of grief.

Schildt needs to be spared the law of the jungle. If you don't like
his books, don't buy them, and rate them low on Amazon by all means.
But if you can't write and don't program well, you look like a
malignant fool and mob member when you start this shit.

hey. I buy technical books. They cost a lot of money. I want to buy
good ones. I'm greatful for any reasoned criticism. Hell, I've even
solicited opinion from you!

I still remember this book supposedly about programming that divided
everyone up into either greeks or romans. I forget the attributes of
greeks and romans. It was pure tosh. I'd of been geatful if someone
(anyone) could have saved me the money and the time. And the planet
the trees.

Your precious
"freedom of speech" is being marshaled by a Fascist desire to control
thought and the purchases of others who don't use Linux...

note for tomorrow: download redhat, invade poland


<snip ranting>

 

[Nick Keighley]

Uh, when IBM realized that it could steal Linux from The Santa Cruz
Operation circa 1995, and use its lawyers to get away with the theft
of intellectual property and intellectual production?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux

though:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=525

 

[BruceS]

I think so.  That's a bitwise compound assignment, but it's not a logical
compound assignment.

Since &&/|| are "logical operators", I would expect a "logical assignment
operator" to be "&&=".

In other words,

        x &= 0xf;   /* strip out bits other than 0xf from x */
        x &&= 0xf;      /* x = 1 if x is not 0 */

The latter would be a logical assignment operator, but doesn't exist.

How about an example of how &= isn't a logical assignment operator?

x = 0x10;
y = 0x01;
x &= y;

Even though both x (before the &=) and y test true, the result of the
&= is false. If it were a logical assignment operator, one would
expect the result to be true.

 

[BruceS]

When are you going to blank or insert a disclaimer in CTCN and modify
the Reception section in the wikipedia article?

I think you may have misread him. He hasn't (that I've seen) promised
to either blank the page or put in a disclaimer, other than to note
that the old CTCN page refers to the 3rd edition. The main thing he's
said he'll do soon is to create a new CTCN page covering some of the
errors in the 4th edition of CTCR. Given your proven history of
making promises and quickly reneging on them, don't you think you
should give Seebs a few more days to publish this new CTCN page? I
think he has greatly underestimated the magnitude of the task and will
only produce a fairly superficial errata page, but I'm at least giving
him a chance to prove me wrong.

HTH

 

[spinoza1111]

yes he has freedom of speech. So do the people who criticise his
book(s)

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not
even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may
have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co.,
221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used
in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils
that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity
and degree."

- SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

In this case, Oliver Wendell Holmes was deciding against men who'd
encouraged soldiers to desert. Quite independent of the merits of the
case, political correctness need not delay us from using the
reasoning, since it is based by analogy with municipal ordinances
which are not only harmless but also good. And, Justice Holmes reasons
that "it is a question of proximity and degree".

In re Schildt, his right to personal privacy and professional standing
was maliciously damaged with falsehoods, starting with Seebach's
(deliberate?) failure to indicate that after 2000 Seebach was talking
about a 3rd edition that was unavailable, and as a result of Seebach's
malicious conduct, people drew conclusions that Seebach was talking,
not only about CTCR eds. 1-3 but also ed. 4, and also about Schildt's
abilities in writing about any other computing topic.

The wikipedia page, furthermore, was created in 2006, after 2000 and
the publication of CTCR4, and based largely on CTCN as it existed then
and exists now. This makes the wikipedia article a serious violation
of wikipedia's own policy "Biographies of Living Persons".

shug. He published a book. The book is publicly available and I dodn't
see how it breaches privacy to read it and criticise it. We aren't
going throgh his bins (trash) or pointing long lenses at his bedroom.


I suspect an average person would find both the book and the critique
incomprehensible.

I wouldn't count on this. Lawyers in fact understand computer science
better than ordinary programmers...we have one half of the evidence
for that statement here.

if he or his publishers had acceptted criticism early on and published
errata (maybe online even!) it would probably saved a lot of grief.

In fact, Peter was, by his own admission, offered a position as a tech
reviewer. He turned it down and published CTCN, including an
invitation to readers to contribute errors, in effect giving all the
appearances that Seebach, 15 years ago, maliciously and purposely
decided to hound Schildt.

hey. I buy technical books. They cost a lot of money. I want to buy
good ones. I'm greatful for any reasoned criticism. Hell, I've even
solicited opinion from you!

As you should be grateful.

An intelligent Linux C programmer would simply put CTCR back on the
shelf, while an intelligent Windows C programmer would not, after
either programmer read about void main. Likewise, any computer
scientist will discard a "critique":

* Which uses "clear" incorrectly

* Claims that "the 'heap' is a DOS term"

* Contradicts itself by claiming dozens or hundreds of errors while
presenting 20 errata, 14 of which are matters of taste,
interpretation, shibboleth and prejudice, under the heading "currently
known"

How many intelligent people use the garbage in Amazon reviews to
seriously make a purchase? Almost none. Seebach's review is worse than
the crap on Amazon.

I still remember this book supposedly about programming that divided
everyone up into either greeks or romans. I forget the attributes of
greeks and romans. It was pure tosh. I'd of been geatful if someone
(anyone) could have saved me the money and the time. And the planet
the trees.

Will you MORONS do me the courtesy of stopping this utterly invalid
form of argument, so characteristic of fat and stupid paraprogrammers
on break?

"I remember this guy useta work here, whatta loser, created a linked
list with pointers to data..."

"Duh, dat's nuttin, Vinnie. Remember Frankie Parcheezi? Changed my
switch statement da doity bastid, by inserting alotta unnecessary
macros. I let da air outa dat homo's tires, you shuddha seen him
screamin' blood moider..."

"Yeah, an' wotta about dat dumb bastid Nilges...remember him? We gave
da moron dat old Cobol program dat da boss done written which was real
fancy, had maybe one or two problems."

"Yeah, da customer couldn't get accurate billin' numbers for confrence
calls, some stupid unimportant shit..."

"So Nilges fuckin' rewrites da whole goddam thing by talkin' like was
spoz'd not to to da switch engineers and simulatin' the whole goddamn
switch to get a few measly numbahs right! Boy was Lemkin mad when he
found out Nilges had thrown away his code!"

"Fuckin' guy...piecea work...so whaddya wanna do tonite, Vinnie?"

"I don' know. Whaddya you wanna do?"

"Ya know, some fuckin' guys...it just goes ta show...don't make no
waves..."

"Don't back no losers...you got dat shit right."

Valid argument by analogy is comparing two situations whose most
important features coincide, and applying a common transformation or
drawing a parallel conclusion. For example, Oliver Wendell Holmes
makes an analogy between the arrest of a man shouting fire in a
crowded theater and the arrest of men counseling US soldiers in time
of war to desert. Holmes felt that this would endanger US citizens
because it was feared, at the time, that Germany had the willingness
and ability to invade North America.

This willingness and ability actually existed, because in 1905, the
German military and naval staffs had war-gamed, successfully, a trans-
atlantic invasion of the USA. Furthermore, as was revealed by the
"Zimmerman Telegram", Germany was plotting to get Japan to switch
sides (in WW1 Japan was on the Allied side) and simultaneously
encourage Mexico to retrieve the territories (California, Arizona,
Texas and New Mexico) it had lost 75 years or so prior in the Mexican
War.

Holmes and other sober men concluded that America was in as clear and
present danger of invasion as patrons of a theater would be of
trampling if some idiot shouted fire.

This was a valid reasoning from analogy because the important feature
(speech transformed into uncivil action) is present in both
encouraging men to desert and shouting fire.

Holmes' logic fails a second later because the NEXT analogy, between
the scale of the crimes, fails, because Holmes wanted to apply
misdemeanor punishment to conduct he thought felonious.

But changing the subject
To some loser you knew who's a bigger loser than you
Doesn't prove you're right after all,
Because it isn't even analogical.
In fact, pard, it's illogical.
Nor does it prove something else you'd like to establish
Which is that because you knew some dork or zany or moron,
And what's more, son, you knew THAT he was full of shit,
Is in no solemn tome nor manual of diagnostic psychiatry,
That you could find, dust off, open up, and like a dimwit
Try on me.
It only proves, and I think I've said this before, so I hope I'm not
boring you with my torrent not of bits but rather of rather elegant if
not, indeed, rather lapidary words,
That you, sonny boy, are one for the birds.
You see, silly, that you were forced to confederate with, jerk around
with, or work in some low estaminet of a data processing shop with
retardos,
Meant in all probability that you were thought a best fit
Given what appears to be a little and tiny wit,
With clowns, buffoons, and Bozos.

 

[spinoza1111]

spinoza1111wrote:


The point that seems to be missed is Schildt for a decade or so
produced formula books, a harlequin romance novel version of
language reference manuals. Most as expected have little new or

It may be unfortunate, but my experience when I was both working in
the rather more rarefied environment of Princeton in 1990, and
simultaneously in Chicago consulting and training, "ordinary"
programmers such as are hired at middling salaries by financial firms
prefer a dumbed-down Harlequin romance style in tech books, lacking
the educational preparation necessary to connect to more fey and more
liteate authors like Kernighan or Knuth.

Since these people are despite their lack of education (a consequence
in turn of what educational activist Jonathan Kozol calls the savage
inequality of American education) hard working and sensible
professionals quite able to add missing definitions of variables
omitted for brevity and understandability and to realize that a macro
need only be enclosed in parentheses in the definition or at the point
of call, they prefer Schildt to someone who thinks they're morons
because their company is using Windows and IBM.

Furthermore, their lack is easily fixed since they have a humility
missing in people who sought through using a checkbook and campaigns
of author destruction to be affiliated with the glamor of unix, but
can't actually code worth WTF.

 

[Seebs]

On Apr 5, 4:58 pm, jacob navia <[email protected]> wrote: [naviaisms]

This is not the kind of attitude that will lead people to want to use
your container library.

it seems an odd way to judge software. Do you only buy software from
people you like. presumably the success of the open source movement is
down entirely to Stallman's wit and charm.

No, but I'd guess that free software would have achieved broader adoption
sooner if Stallman had more charisma (and, dare I say it, social skills).

I have seen quite a few people argue, persuasively, that the key advantage
FreeBSD had over NetBSD in market penetration was that Jordan Hubbard was
a persuasive evangelist.

-s

 

[Seebs]

On the other hand, which "computer scientist or author of note" has
given a positive review of his books?

I am told that, at some point, Plauger gave a positive review to one
of them. I haven't seen this, and it was a second-hand account, so it
could be that I have it wrong.

Until then, the "reception" Schildt's books received is defined by
those who actually bothered to read and assess them, and they all
found the books seriously flawed. And Wikipedia's article, which
somehow obsesses you, properly says that.

I don't think it is necessarily true that they *all* found the books
seriously flawed. However, the question I then have to answer is, am I
willing to be on the record as disagreeing with a luminary like Plauger?
The answer is, of course, yes -- if I have good enough evidence.

It could be that the book Plauger reviewed was better. It could be that he
made a mistake. But the books I've looked at (Annotated ANSI C Standard,
and three editions of C:TCR, two of which I've read at length) have all been
very bad.

I've argued with dmr about C (once*).

-s
[*] I don't know whether or not I persuaded him. The issue was a
sufficiently trivial nitpick that I don't think it matters.