help me learn C

[Chris Hills]

[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

With over 20 years of SW engineering behind me I have yet to write an ap
for any of these OS. The point is that C is used in many places.
Discussing it here will help people understand the differences and the
parts that are the same.

C.l.c is just that somewhere to discuss C . It does not say standard C
(there is a comp.std.c) If you want to discuss standard C got to
comp.std.c C standards development happens somewhere else on the WG14
and other NGs.

 

[raajagopal.v]

dear abhi if u feel any difficult in reading the books of foreign
authors other than india its very difficult to grab th facts, as my
suggestions go for ansi c by E.Balagurusamy

 

[Default User]

dear abhi if u feel any difficult in reading the books of foreign
authors other than india its very difficult to grab th facts, as my
suggestions go for ansi c by E.Balagurusamy

Please help us to understand your messages.

1. Don't use odd abreviations like "u".

2. Do use capital letters where appropriate.

3. Quote the previous message. See below for details.



Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

C.l.c is just that somewhere to discuss C . It does not say standard C
(there is a comp.std.c) If you want to discuss standard C got to
comp.std.c C standards development happens somewhere else on the WG14
and other NGs.

But that's not what the newsgroups are actually used for.

For purposes of this newsgroup, "C" and "standard C" are very nearly
synonymous. C is the language defined by the C standard; that's what
the standard is for.

comp.std.c is for discussion *of the standard*, not of the language
defined by the standard. The actual development of the standard
doesn't happen in the newsgroup (any more than actual development of C
code happens (much) in comp.lang.c; comp.std.c is a forum for
discussion of the C standard.

What kinds of things would you like to discuss here in comp.lang.c
that are outside the scope of the standard?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

C.l.c is just that somewhere to discuss C . It does not say standard C
(there is a comp.std.c)

unfortunately you're mistaken about the purpose of the groups.

comp.std.c is for discussion of the Standard itself.
comp.lang.c is for discussion of the language as defined by teh
standard.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Joe Wright]

[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

Alan

The C discussed here is not C++ and doesn't know anything about Windows,
Mac OS, Linux or VMS or whatever.

We would like to discuss the language and its application to portable
programs, not its implementation on the DeathStation series.

What is it about this concept that is so hard to understand?

 

[Chris Hills]

(e-mail address removed)> writes

[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.



They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

Alan

The C discussed here is not C++ and doesn't know anything about Windows,
Mac OS, Linux or VMS or whatever.

We would like to discuss the language and its application to portable
programs, not its implementation on the DeathStation series.

No WE would not. You do. That is the point. This discussion is taking
place because whilst some people want to limit this NG others want to
broaden it. Or in their veiw not artificially restrict it.

What is it about this concept that is so hard to understand?

Precisely. What is it about the counter argument you find so hard to
understand?

Many people here think that some of you are artificially restricting the
discussions to a narrow topic.

Over time all things evolve or die. Even Newsgroups.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

Many people here think that some of you are artificially restricting the
discussions to a narrow topic.

Yes, you're right - we are. Take a look at what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they stopped artificially restricting the discussions to a narrow
topic. The newsgroup took years to recover after almost suffocating from a
plethora of questions that would have been better handled in
implementation-specific newsgroups. That's what implementation-specific
newsgroups are *for*.

If we go the same way as comp.lang.c++ went, we will almost certainly have
much the same experience, and it's likely that much of the C expertise to
be found here will vanish from comp.lang.c, some of it never to return. Is
that what we want?

Over time all things evolve or die. Even Newsgroups.

I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills said:


Yes, you're right - we are. Take a look at what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they stopped artificially restricting the discussions to a narrow
topic. The newsgroup took years to recover after almost suffocating from a
plethora of questions that would have been better handled in
implementation-specific newsgroups. That's what implementation-specific
newsgroups are *for*.

If we go the same way as comp.lang.c++ went, we will almost certainly have
much the same experience, and it's likely that much of the C expertise to
be found here will vanish from comp.lang.c, some of it never to return. Is
that what we want?


I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

The eventually you will die....

Personally I have decided to be immortal and so far so good

 

[Nick Keighley]

Help you learn C eh? That's quite the boon to ask. The C language is
extremely large

??

C is generally viewed as a *small* language!

containing numerous standard features and even more
nonstandard ones.

by definition C contains no nonstandard features! If its non-standard
then it
isn't part of C...

<snip>

 

[Mark McIntyre]

No WE would not. You do.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance, vis that topicality should encompass the dozens of
different programming environments and extensions to C that are
around, even though expert groups already exist to discuss these
topics.

That is the point. This discussion is taking
place because whilst some people want to limit this NG others want to
broaden it. Or in their veiw not artificially restrict it.

No, the discussion is taking place because some people want to retain
the historic topic of CLC, while others want to throw it away, and
create a general programming group discussing dozens of completely
incompatible environments.

Precisely. What is it about the counter argument you find so hard to
understand?

I'm struggling to see any logic behind the idea of throwing out the
baby with the bathwater, but YMMV.

By the way, whats so hard to understand about the idea of setting up a
new group matching your desired topicality. If, as you believe,
there's a need, then people will gravitate to it.

Many people here think that some of you are artificially restricting the
discussions to a narrow topic.

Actually, on a straw poll of all the recent posters, around two out of
several dozen do. In my book, thats "few" not "many".

Over time all things evolve or die. Even Newsgroups.

Then let this one die, if you think it will.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Rod Pemberton]

(e-mail address removed)> writes

[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.



They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

Alan

The C discussed here is not C++ and doesn't know anything about Windows,
Mac OS, Linux or VMS or whatever.

We would like to discuss the language and its application to portable
programs, not its implementation on the DeathStation series.

What is it about this concept that is so hard to understand?

*LOOK* at the name: comp.lang.c

It's that simple. Really, it is. It's especially true for the large number
of recent non-native English speakers who now have access to Usenet and post
to Usenet. Just how are they supposed to divine that comp.lang.c has some
hidden, ancient, and obsolete restricted purpose? comp.lang.c doesn't even
have a charter.

This fight has been going on since 1995, perhaps even earlier, over
something for which there is an extremely simple fix: create another usenet
group whose title appropriately reflects what you're interested in
discussing:

e.g.: comp.lang.iso.c

or: comp.lang.c.non-programming



Rod Pemberton

 

[Mark McIntyre]

of recent non-native English speakers who now have access to Usenet and post
to Usenet. Just how are they supposed to divine that comp.lang.c

From any online nettiquette guide you care to mention:
"When you join a list serv or newgroup, monitor the messages for a few
days to get a feel for what common questions are asked, and what
topics are deemed off-limits. This is commonly referred to as
lurking."

has some hidden, ancient, and obsolete restricted purpose?

disingenuous and imflammatory remarks are why you're regarded as a
troll, remember?

comp.lang.c doesn't even have a charter.

.... because its been around so long, it predates such ideas. Instead
it has a Welcome message, trivial to find and covering topicality.

This fight has been going on since 1995, perhaps even earlier,

is an extremely simple fix: create another usenet
group whose title appropriately reflects what you're interested in
discussing:

e.g.: comp.lang.iso.c

The phrase I'm thinking of is "comp.lang.c was here first, you go form
a new group if you want one, don't steal other peoples'"

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Chris Hills]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,

Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?

If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.

As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So

I'm aware of who Chris Hills is.

I am not sure with category I fit into.

the "some others" was inserted just for you.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

Evidence for this assertion?

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

Please stop posting this misinformation.

As for this NG dying... it is.

For what its worth, I've been posting here since 1995, off and on, and
the daily volume hasn't changed much.

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

As you will know well, CLC has no charter and predates that system.
The topic is therefore defined by the users. Its been defined.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

No, if you want to discuss the standard itself that is where you go.

If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or
extensions.

Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?

They are all standard C, in that they are C and they are standard. None
of them contain the functions "getch()" and "clrscrn()", which are two
of the most common functions people get mad about here.

If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.

And many questions /are/ answered this way. They just also get redirects
to more topical areas.

As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.

I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

 

[Chris Hills]

I'm aware of who Chris Hills is.

It's a myth

the "some others" was inserted just for you.

Thanks In a class of my own. (though some say it should be a room of my
own)

However I am not the only one who is not new or a troll who holds a
similar position on this.

Evidence for this assertion?

See below

Please stop posting this misinformation.

What miss information. It is where I and others discuss ISO C publicly
as opposed to the deliberations on the panel reflectors

For what its worth, I've been posting here since 1995, off and on, and
the daily volume hasn't changed much.

Yet the number of Internet users has multiplied by many orders of
magnitude. By chance when looking for something else I found several
other google/yahoo and other forums that were effectively a comp.lang.c
which equal volume to this one.


SO whilst this NG has maintained its volume of traffic/users it is in a
world where if you are not expanding you ARE going backwards.

This fragmentation is not good IMHO

As you will know well, CLC has no charter and predates that system.
The topic is therefore defined by the users. Its been defined.

Yes by me and several other users to have a wider remit that you
want..... You are not the user who decides.

That is the point. YOU do not get to dictate to others. There is no
committee, board or panel on this NG that can dictate to the rest.

All you are doing is driving people away to the other forums many of
which are now becoming or are passing c.l.c in volume and users. They
will be come the authoritative voice of C on the Internet.

I am not suggesting that we let all questions though here just a
relaxing a little in the attitude of the pious.

 

[Chris Hills]

No, if you want to discuss the standard itself that is where you go.

Or standard C... it is where those of use on the ISO C panel discuss ISO
C publicly

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or
extensions.

Good for you then you are in a very small minority. What targets do you
write for? what sort off applications?

They are all standard C, in that they are C and they are standard.

Then you are WRONG in that assertion.

None
of them contain the functions "getch()" and "clrscrn()", which are two
of the most common functions people get mad about here.

That is a red herring.

And many questions /are/ answered this way. They just also get redirects
to more topical areas.
I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment. Some of use were on line here before
you were born.

the Internet has expand by many orders of magnitude during your life
time. The traffic here has not. However there are many other forum
similar to c.l.c now around also with as much or more traffic as here.

As c.l.c is not growing in proportion to the growth in the Internet it
is therefore getting smaller.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I am not suggesting that we let all questions though here just a
relaxing a little in the attitude of the pious.

Can you be more specific about the kinds of things that you think
should be considered topical here?

 

[Vladimir Oka]

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

I beg to disagree.

Unless hundreds of KLOC of, say, embedded GSM/GPRS/3G protocol stack
amounts to "very little" C. And there's more than one of those. And
most of it doesn't even use /any/ library functions. (Obviously, at
some point it touches the hardware, but that can easily be nicely
isolated.) There must be other examples like this.

Good for you then you are in a very small minority. What targets do you
write for? what sort off applications?

See above.

I haven't used a library function (apart from `malloc()` and `free()`)
for more than five years. As a matter of fact noone in my department
has. Target: mobile phones. Applications: protocol stacks. Exactly the
same applied in my two previous jobs. Targets: deeply embedded systems.
Applications: HV systems protection and control, military communication
devices. (Again, there is a layer of non-standard hardware specific
stuff, but that's easily cordoned off from the standard code.)

You do not know enough to comment.

That's an unfair assumption

Some of use were on line here before you were born.

And that is irrelevant, and patronising.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

What the "C language" is, is defined by the "C Standard". Or is it not?