help me learn C

[Chris Hills]

I beg to disagree.

Unless hundreds of KLOC of, say, embedded GSM/GPRS/3G protocol stack
amounts to "very little" C.

written to ISO9899:1999?

That's an unfair assumption

Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience some
one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed any
formal training. Two months no this NG is hardley enough either.

And that is irrelevant, and patronising.

The point is that he is jumping in to a debat with 2 months exposure to
this NG and NO experience of C standards, any work experience or formal
training.

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

ISO 9899:1999? Which compiler do you use that use a pure implementation
of that?

If you want to widen it out to K&R 1, 2, ANSI89, ISO 90, 95/96 & 99 that
lets most things in except real world implementations.

If you discuss the C language I would have though "as implemented" was a
good idea instead of sending people away to other NG's

This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

You may say "good" but the net result (no pun intended is that other
forum become THE place to ask authoritative questions on C and
comp.std.C is the place of requisitions on standard C

That leaves this NG dying on its feet because of a few purist.

You have an opportunity to build a much larger community on here. You
can educate people in the differences between what they are doing and
standard C. Make them aware there is a difference. In some cases there
may be a standard or portable way of doing things.

As it is with the way MS are adding TR's etc most questions will be
answered on the MS NG's leaving this NG with a VERY small focus and
fewer people.

 

[Vladimir Oka]

written to ISO9899:1999?

To ISO 90, as huge chunks of the code base predate C99.

Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience some
one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

Again, "any" sounds a bit too harsh. I prefer to keep an open mind.
After all, size does not matter in more areas of human endevour but
one. ;-)

He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed any
formal training.

That I can agree with. As an aside, the latter is useful, but far from
sine qua non.

Two months no this NG is hardley enough either.

One thing Google is good at, used wisely, is compressing history of
Usenet. I obviously can't speak for Andrew, but at his age time is a
comodity in ample supply, and he may have reviewed years of c.l.c in
those two months.

The point is that he is jumping in to a debat with 2 months exposure to
this NG and NO experience of C standards, any work experience or formal
training.

So, attack his arguments. There's no need for ad hominem tackles.

ISO 9899:1999? Which compiler do you use that use a pure implementation
of that?

As I described above, even if one (fully conforming) existed I wouldn't
be using it (or its C99 features).

If you want to widen it out to K&R 1, 2, ANSI89, ISO 90, 95/96 & 99 that
lets most things in except real world implementations.

However, I find it useful that differences in various standards (past
and present) are pointed out in c.l.c. That's where I see value in
letting in more than one standard (but standard nonetheless).

If you discuss the C language I would have though "as implemented" was a
good idea instead of sending people away to other NG's

All compilers worth their salt allow for full standards compliance,
therefore standard C "as implemented" applies to all of them. Where
they introduce extensions, there are more knowledgable and more
narrowly defined places to disscus them.

This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

You may say "good" but the net result (no pun intended is that other
forum become THE place to ask authoritative questions on C and
comp.std.C is the place of requisitions on standard C

That leaves this NG dying on its feet because of a few purist.

Be that as it may, but already having all these other places for
extensions, what is wrong with having *one* where only standard
language features are discussed. Why is it necessary to bring in all
the other topics that already have their fora? Are you advocating
getting rid of all the specialised groups in favour of c.l.c becoming
The One?

You have an opportunity to build a much larger community on here. You
can educate people in the differences between what they are doing and
standard C. Make them aware there is a difference. In some cases there
may be a standard or portable way of doing things.

But we (for wont of a better word) do! Non-standard features are
pointed out, and posters redirected to where expertise on them exists.

I for one have almost no knowledge worth mention of any of the
(mass-market) system-specific stuff and extensions. And yet, I have
been doing embedded C for more than a decade (and various assembly and
other languages for quite a bit longer).

So, where do I go for help and information? Certainly not a high
traffic group where non-system-specific posts are far and few between.

As it is with the way MS are adding TR's etc most questions will be
answered on the MS NG's leaving this NG with a VERY small focus and
fewer people.

All size comparisons are relative. One might also argue that a small
body of standard code (and people working on it) has relatively large
importance for its size, as it enables solutions to survive particular
sysems and implementations.

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

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

Standard C is discussed here, amid the discussions on what exactly we
discuss. For someone so insistent that real-world experience is
everything, looking at a few threads will tell you that.

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.

Really? I've seen huge games written where there are a few files of
non-standard C encapsulating library functions and other such non-C, and
dozens of files of completely legal C.

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

Text-based applications, for friends and family, or for myself when I
have a certain problem that can't be decently solved in awk. When I want
graphics, I rewrite display.c, which is in all of my newer applications,
so that it itself is nonstandard, leaving the several other files intact.

Then you are WRONG in that assertion.

I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you meant by wrong; which
assertation are you talking about?

That is a red herring.

I could list other common non-standard abuses that not only could be
encapsulated and isolated, but could be eliminated entirely.

You do not know enough to comment.

That's an unfair generalization. I've been programming for eight years,
in C for six. I know enough to post to this newsgroup.

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

I'm aware of that; I know my history. ;-)

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 intellect of the average internet user has gone down dramatically as
its population has gone up; the number of smart people online isn't
going to change much. You don't want to know what will happen if c.l.c
had to handle the average joe posting on here.

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.

We don't need a charter because c.l.c has been here for so long, as you
pointed out when attacking my age, and its purpose is established.

The C language is defined by the C standard.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

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.

As a newsgroups traffic expands, it becomes unwieldy and
participants drop out. This puts a natural cap on the size of any
one group. It is something like the relationship of the population
of rabbits to the population of lynxes.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience
some one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed
any formal training. Two months no this NG is hardley enough either.

Well, at least judging from the above quoted portion, his spelling
is better than yours. This could be due to better care, better
training, or other factors. I have insufficient data.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Default User]

Yet the number of Internet users has multiplied by many orders of
magnitude.

That's irrelevant. The number of usenet users is steadily declining. It
has nothing to do with the policies of clc, it's a general condition.
Many ISPs no longer offer usenet access at all, notably AOL.

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.

The competition from the web forums is one factor in the OVERALL
decline of usenet participation. That doesn't mean their views
topicality have anything to do with it.

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.

Actually, we are in a world that is shrinking. So if we're maintaining,
we're ahead of the game.




Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

Can you provide pointers to these other forums?

Do any of them discuss *just* the language as defined by the standard
(which happens to be one of the many things I'm interested in
discussing)?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

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.

Okay, now I'm convinced you're not the "real" Chris Hills. This is
such a disingenuous remark to make, its unbelievable. Besides which,
its false.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim

You're the one who misunderstands.

Troll alert.
--
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

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience some
one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

You patronising git. I seem to recall some posters here with oodles of
knowledge were fresh out of college, others have been around for
longer even than Chris "I'm older than usenet" Hills. Thats about all
there is to say.

He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed any
formal training.

Since when did you need formal training to understand the purpose of a
news group.
--
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

 

[Mark McIntyre]

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

I'd just like to stress that this is patronising, pompous, overweening
and bullshit. My dad was around maths before I was born, but he knows
considerably less about derivatives pricing than I do.

If you have a point to make, make it, don't waste time inflating your
ego and crowing at the masthead.
--
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

 

[Mark McIntyre]

See below

You seem to have forgotten to attach the evidence.

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.

Did you mean this ?I'm sorry, but unattributable remarks about volumes
of internet users have no bearing on the traffic of CLC. When usenet
started, the VAST MAJORITY (intentional shouting) of users were
techies. Now they're mostly as techy as a frog. You expected them to
want to learn C? Get real.

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.

See above. False conclusion from bogus data.
--
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

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:14:11 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<who cares>

I forgot to add: threadPLONK
--
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

 

[jacob navia]

Chris Hills a écrit :

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




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.




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




Then you are WRONG in that assertion.




That is a red herring.




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.




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.

Hi Chris.

There are other people that think like you. This group should allow
discussing about the language as used, its future, its evolution and
many other important stuff rather than always accepting only homework
and keeping the level of discussion at the ground floor.

We are doing a very interesting discussion (the first one in this group
since at least 10 years) where it is possible to discuss about the
possible evolution of C. See the "Boost process and C" discussion.

jacob

 

[Ian Collins]

ISO 9899:1999? Which compiler do you use that use a pure implementation
of that?

If you want to widen it out to K&R 1, 2, ANSI89, ISO 90, 95/96 & 99 that
lets most things in except real world implementations.

If you discuss the C language I would have though "as implemented" was a
good idea instead of sending people away to other NG's

This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

You may say "good" but the net result (no pun intended is that other
forum become THE place to ask authoritative questions on C and
comp.std.C is the place of requisitions on standard C

That leaves this NG dying on its feet because of a few purist.

You have an opportunity to build a much larger community on here. You
can educate people in the differences between what they are doing and
standard C. Make them aware there is a difference. In some cases there
may be a standard or portable way of doing things.

I think a lot of the flak you draw is due to the problems that occurred
down the hall with the C++ group. People are naturally concerned that
this group could degenerate into another windows programming forum.
Before anyone accuses me of bias, I only picked windows because it is
the most widely used platform and most of the OT posts here are from
windows users who don't realise this is a platform neutral group.

Which still leaves the problem of what should and shouldn't be
discussed. The same question came up on the long running "Boost process
and C" thread a few days back.

I think the only contentions issue is whether discussions around the
future evolution of the the language are on or off topic. These could
either take place here, on on c.s.c, or on a third group. As we don't
have another venue, I think general musings and discussions can only
take place here, with more concrete proposals going to c.s.c.

As it is with the way MS are adding TR's etc most questions will be
answered on the MS NG's leaving this NG with a VERY small focus and
fewer people.

TRs are a tricky one, in the C++ world, they tend to be actively
discussed on the moderated group or on the std group, keeping the
unmoderated group for the current language. So the place for TRs is c.s.c.

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills a écrit :

Hi Chris.

There are other people that think like you. This group should allow
discussing about the language as used, its future, its evolution and
many other important stuff rather than always accepting only homework
and keeping the level of discussion at the ground floor.

Thanks.

I shall now retire to the NG's where we discuss, formulate and actually
produce the standards this lot harp on about. I find there are other far
more mature and authoritative NG's for discussion C than this one.

Over the last few years this one seems to have degenerated to where a
few thought police are ruining it. It is getting religious where a few
think they can invent a pseudo charter and push it on the rest of us.

I never got this precious over the NG I created some years back. Let it
live and breath. It served it purpose.

We are doing a very interesting discussion (the first one in this group
since at least 10 years) where it is possible to discuss about the
possible evolution of C. See the "Boost process and C" discussion.

So I saw. Good luck though there have bee other interesting discussion
on here over the last decade and a half but they are getting fewer.

For definitive discussions on ISO C use comp.std.c for mature discussion
son C in general comp.lang.c.moderated. I got flamed on here for
several things I posted that were well received on the moderated side.
Interestingly by some "house hold names" in the industry.

Regards
Chris

 

[Chris Hills]

Okay, now I'm convinced you're not the "real" Chris Hills. This is
such a disingenuous remark to make, its unbelievable. Besides which,
its false.

Perhaps I am biased as I work with a coupe of tool companies who
analyse source code. Perhaps they are all wrong. I am sure you have a
far wider view of the industry than they do.

You're the one who misunderstands.

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say what
the actual use of the NG is.

Either it is there in print or it is open to interpretation for anyone.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.

Troll alert.

Clearly you are one.

 

[Keith Thompson]

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say what
the actual use of the NG is.

Either it is there in print or it is open to interpretation for anyone.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.

As we all know, there is no written charter simply because the
newsgroup was created before the existence of newsgroup charters.
As a result, topicality is judged by the consensus of the regulars.
I've already stated what I think that consensus is and should be.

Can you explain, with some *specific* examples, what kinds of things
you think should be topical here that people have said shouldn't be?

(By convention, meta-discussions about topicality, like this one, are
considered topical.)

 

[Default User]

Chris Hills wrote:

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say
what the actual use of the NG is.

Pure, blithering nonsense. Under your theory, we could be discussing
lottery strategy or tuning race car engines.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.

In the absence of a charter, the majority will prevails. You aren't in
the majority. Others have tried your blather in the past, it's failed,
as will you.



Brian

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills wrote:



Pure, blithering nonsense. Under your theory, we could be discussing
lottery strategy or tuning race car engines.

Yes. In most NG's they occasionally stray off topic. In the embedded NG
there is currently s discussion on aids! Most have said it makes a
change and is a good thing to stray occasionally.

In the absence of a charter, the majority will prevails. You aren't in
the majority.

given the number of people on here who according to you who ask OT
questions and that a lot of use disagree with the vociferous few you
have no grounds to say that. Let alon any proof..

Others have tried your blather in the past, it's failed,
as will you.

Maybe this time but eventually we will get this back to the open and
friendly NG it was before the thought police got so pious and cranky as
in recent months.

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Yes. In most NG's they occasionally stray off topic. In the embedded NG
there is currently s discussion on aids!

Surely there's a more appropriate group in which to discuss AIDS than
the embedded newsgroup.

given the number of people on here who according to you who ask OT
questions and that a lot of use disagree with the vociferous few you
have no grounds to say that. Let alon any proof..

It turns out that the "vociferous few" such as Brian are also the most
uniformly knowledgeable and helpful posters, so if you'd like to
migrate to their killfiles, by all means keep belaboring this point.

Maybe this time but eventually we will get this back to the open and
friendly NG it was before the thought police got so pious and cranky as
in recent months.

You are clearly new here, as our most cranky regular, Dan Pop, has not
been seen in some time.