J'accuse

[spinoza1111]

Your bitterness against GCC is somewhat entertaining.


YOUR mentioning lcc (without proper disclaimers) is inappropriate.

Corporate life is a perpetual childhood, in my experience. In return
for a modicum of economic security, the work is so factored that
employees are like the firing squad, one of whose rifles is
traditionally loaded with a blank: in the corporation, nobody can
credit himself (or another) with any real accomplishment, since that's
the intellectual property of the firm.

This creates a child's world, where the day is passed (as in
Dosteoevsky) in happy children's songs and games, alternating as here
with the vicious spite of children. Do not tell us of the wisdom of
our old men, say the Korporate Kiddies: tell us instead that they are
"bitter".

Well gee, everyone's "bitter" in another Godwin Convergence, aren't
they? Just as you wind up calling each other Fascists because you are
a bunch of lower middle class clerks and the shock troops of Fascism,
you're all bitter because you all gonna get or has done got screwed,
right? Even Obama won't give you Yanks what ch'all need.

Comes now a Navia, who actually did something: comes now a Schildt who
did something. Of course you hate him and of course everything he says
is wrong.

FT Baker applied structured programming on behalf of his employer,
IBM, in 1980 to create a working suite of PL/I programs: the New York
Times electronic morgue of NYT stories. To this day, this data base
can be accessed online to get electronic stories back to 1981 (prior
stories appear as facsimile microfilm).

FT Baker wrote an article about his effort for the IBM Systems
Journal. Almost immediately, snippy little letters appeared in
Computerworld calling him self-serving because pure recognition, and
today basic economic security is denied to American computer
programmers, who live in a society which has priced a life of basic
security and dignity beyond their reach.

Myths have a very disturbing tendency to emerge in the structures of
daily life. I see Navia on an ass and you welcoming him to Jerusalem,
but he has only to use the personal pronoun, and not flatter Keith and
Dickie, the Pharisee and the Saducee, as C experts, and a week later
the same mob is clamoring for crucifixion, and everything Jacob says
is attacked. I ain't sayin' he's Jesus Christ, bonehead. I am saying
that structurally, myths emerge in daily life like darkness at noon.

 

[Nick Keighley]

be careful. There's lcc which was written by someone else and
lcc- win32 [written] by Jacob Navia. I don't believe Jacob's compiler
will run under DOS.

Of course. I meant I wanted to run it in the DOS-like window that
still exists even in Vista.

sorry I misunderstood you. Programs that run in the little black
window
are usually refered to as console programs. DOS programs are usually
those that make actual DOS calls. People really do still run such
things.

That's what he said it was.

fair enough if that's what he said. I thought the OP asked
"how can I do X in C" so Jacob's answer might not be what he wanted.

This is ridiculous. Under a strict
application of your own rule, you could not even discuss problems in
writing applications programs in C, since understanding how a C
program to do accounting would necessitate some discussion of
accounting!

um, under *my* rule yes you could. Though a full blown discussion of
accountancy parctices would be obviously off-topic.

And you most certainly would have to cease making
individuals the grammatical subject (Mr. Poo did this, Mr Fu did that)
or object (we hate him) of your verbs. You would have to discuss using
C to write compilers for C in the most abstract terms, and not one of
you has the writing skill, charity or discipline to do this.

you say this I don't agree


note that Jacob is still alive whilst Holocaust survivors (even in
1946)
are a minority. There really is no point in arguing this. You're
just wrong.

Only if psychiatry has become a tool of control. Look, life looked
normal inside German "tabulating" shops during the Holocaust, and
people to whom it looked deviant were at a minimum called crazy. In
the Soviet Union after Stalin's death, life looked normal inside
computer centres and people to whom it looked deviant were labeled as
"functioning schizophrenics" and carted away. John Nash was considered
"crazy" in Roanoke because of conventional attitudes, but for us at
Princeton, riding a bicycle, checking out library books, and working
on equations in a cafeteria were "normal" activities.

You need to take a long hard look at yourself and what's going on
here. You collectively act like maddened children.

"There is a huge difference between disliking somebody - maybe even
disliking them a lot - and actually shooting them, strangling them,
dragging
them through the fields and setting their house on fire. It was a
difference
which kept the vast majority of the population alive from day to day."
[DGHDA by Douglas Adams]

 

[Nick Keighley]

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/(Navia's terms)http://opensource.org/docs/osd(OSI definition)

Navia is what we'd commonly understand as open software, but it is not
open source,

if it isn't open source (I'm not certain of this but I couldn't find
a
source download on the site either) in what sense is it "open".

since there's no indication at the above site. He may
give us more correct information in this discussion.

and which variant of "free" are you using. If I can't is it "free"
in the Stallman sense?

[note: I don't care if it's "open", "free" or whatever. Jacob can do
as he please with his own stuff. I'd just like it to be described
correctly]

 

[jacob navia]

Nick Keighley a écrit :

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/(Navia's terms)http://opensource.org/docs/osd(OSI definition)

Navia is what we'd commonly understand as open software, but it is not
open source,

if it isn't open source (I'm not certain of this but I couldn't find
a
source download on the site either) in what sense is it "open".

since there's no indication at the above site. He may
give us more correct information in this discussion.

and which variant of "free" are you using. If I can't is it "free"
in the Stallman sense?

[note: I don't care if it's "open", "free" or whatever. Jacob can do
as he please with his own stuff. I'd just like it to be described
correctly]

Contrary to redhat, suse, and other companies that sell the work
of others, I sell only my work.

My software is distributed for free since 12-13 years. I have financed
all expenses, put up with all the work. I refuse however to give it away
as GNU source so that redhat or another company that thrives on open
source can sell it and profit from my work with me receiving NOTHING.

Because here there is obviously a double standard.

When I try to earn money with my work I am a shrewd business man
always spamming, etc.

When redhat and Suse earn millions with the work of other people that
work for free that's OK of course. That's GNU way of using people for
profit. Most projects of GNU are financed with the same policy: you
pay for consulting. The only difference is that they distribute the
source. Since you can't do much with GNU source code (megabytes of
source without a single comment, technical descrtiption or whatever
documentation) they are safe. I refuse to play that game.

I do some consulting to earn my life, and direct sales of lcc-win are at
most 50% of the direct server expenses and other costs.

 

[gwowen]

Contrary to redhat, suse, and other companies that sell the work

of others, I sell only my work.

I understood that lcc-win32 was a derived work of Hanson
and Fraser's "lcc" compiler. Is that not the case?

 

[jacob navia]

gwowen a écrit :

I understood that lcc-win32 was a derived work of Hanson
and Fraser's "lcc" compiler. Is that not the case?

I bought the copyrights from Addison Wesley for an important
sum.
The reason is that I wanted to keep the copyright of my
enhancements.

Thisof course doesn't mean that I think their work is bad or
unimportant.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> Not constantly, Mijn Heer.

Darn, Willem has made it into a deity.

 

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield a écrit :

Except for commercial use. If I understand your Web site correctly,
you also sell educational licences. Note that there is NOTHING WRONG
WITH THAT, and NOBODY is saying you shouldn't charge for your
software.

I have

No, there really isn't.


No, the complaints are not about your trying to earn money with your
work, but about your frequent attempts to subvert a technical
newsgroup for commercial ends, by plugging your product.


If the RedHat guys or the SuSE guys posted answers in here along the
same lines as yours: "if you're using RedHat, you can use our special
RedHat stuff to do what you want..." - they would get the same
reception that you get.



Irrelevant. If you were earning a million fra... oh, sorry, a million
Euros a week from your software, that would be fabulous and I'd be
very pleased for you. But this newsgroup is about C, not about
particular implementations.

Strange, strange

I have never (in all these years in this group) seen a single time
when you said that a question is off topic because it mentioned
gcc.

ALL the time we have questions asked about gcc or it is mentioned
as a solution or whatever. That's OK. Nobody complains (I don't either).

It is only when sombody asks about 128 bit arithmetic and I answer
that lcc-win does it that that is OFF TOPIC!

Look yourself at your first answer here:

"You should have answered that GMP or MIRACL can be used as
infinite precision libraries".

If I mention a compiler that does the same it is not OK because it is
not GNU.

You are as biased as I am.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Nick Keighley a écrit : [...]

[note: I don't care if it's "open", "free" or whatever. Jacob can do
as he please with his own stuff. I'd just like it to be described
correctly]

Contrary to redhat, suse, and other companies that sell the work
of others, I sell only my work.

My software is distributed for free since 12-13 years. I have financed
all expenses, put up with all the work. I refuse however to give it away
as GNU source so that redhat or another company that thrives on open
source can sell it and profit from my work with me receiving NOTHING.

Because here there is obviously a double standard.

I see no double standard.

You provide lcc-win32 at no charge for non-commercial use. You charge
money for commercial use. Nobody, as far as I can remember, has ever
objected to that.

But when people point out the terms under which lcc-win32 is
available, in words entirely consistent with what you've written

When I try to earn money with my work I am a shrewd business man
always spamming, etc.

When you recommend your own product on this newsgroup bu pushing some
non-standard extension that it implements, sometimes without
acknowledging your own association with it, that's an inappropriate
use of the newsgroup.

[snip]

 

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield a écrit : [...]

Irrelevant. If you were earning a million fra... oh, sorry, a
million Euros a week from your software, that would be fabulous and
I'd be very pleased for you. But this newsgroup is about C, not
about particular implementations.

Strange, strange

I have never (in all these years in this group) seen a single time
when you said that a question is off topic because it mentioned
gcc.

ALL the time we have questions asked about gcc or it is mentioned
as a solution or whatever. That's OK. Nobody complains (I don't either).

It is only when sombody asks about 128 bit arithmetic and I answer
that lcc-win does it that that is OFF TOPIC!

You have a point, but it's only partly valid.

A great many of the gcc-specific discussions here have to do
with how to make gcc behave as a standard-compliant compiler.
The corresponding lcc-win-specific discussions tend to be about its
non-standard extensions, such as operator overloading, qfloat, etc.

It's also relevant, I think, that the maintainers of gcc don't post
here pushing their own compiler and its non-standard extensions.

As for lcc-win's 128-bit arithmetic, does lcc-win implement that
in a manner consistent with the standard, such as using extended
integer types as specified in C99 6.2.5, with appropriate definitions
in <stdint.h>? If so, I'd have no problem discussing it here.

If it's implemented as an extension, using things like
lcc-win-specific operator overloading, I wouldn't object to a
brief mention with a redirection to a more appropriate forum.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the way *I'd* say it
is something like:

If you need 128-bit integer arithmetic and portability isn't
too much of an issue, lcc-win supports it via a non-standard
extension. Feel free to contact me or post to comp.compilers.lcc
for more information.

(And if you didn't use C99-style extended integer types, why not?)

 

[spinoza1111]

Except for commercial use. If I understand your Web site correctly,
you also sell educational licences. Note that there is NOTHING WRONG
WITH THAT, and NOBODY is saying you shouldn't charge for your
software.

 I have



No, there really isn't.


No, the complaints are not about your trying to earn money with your
work, but about your frequent attempts to subvert a technical
newsgroup for commercial ends, by plugging your product.

It would be quite refreshing if everybody here were as talented as
Navia and we all had something to flog. It would be quite a change of
pace from campaigns of personal destruction.

If the RedHat guys or the SuSE guys posted answers in here along the
same lines as yours: "if you're using RedHat, you can use our special
RedHat stuff to do what you want..." - they would get the same
reception that you get.



Irrelevant. If you were earning a million fra... oh, sorry, a million
Euros a week from your software, that would be fabulous and I'd be
very pleased for you. But this newsgroup is about C, not about
particular implementations. I can't change that, and neither can you
- at least, not without achieving a consensus for change.

That is crazy. C doesn't exist outside of implementations, and
programmers need to know about C implementations. Navia's contribution
would be missed if it were in its own group, and it is of potential
interest to any C programmer.

 

[spinoza1111]

Nick Keighley a écrit :

if it isn't open source (I'm not certain of this but I couldn't find
a
source download on the site either) in what sense is it "open".

and which variant of "free" are you using. If I can't is it "free"
in the Stallman sense?

[note: I don't care if it's "open", "free" or whatever. Jacob can do
as he please with his own stuff. I'd just like it to be described
correctly]

Contrary to redhat, suse, and other companies that sell the work
of others, I sell only my work.

My software is distributed for free since 12-13 years. I have financed
all expenses, put up with all the work. I refuse however to give it away
as GNU source so that redhat or another company that thrives on open
source can sell it and profit from my work with me receiving NOTHING.

I support you here! Much of open source is a genteel and tranched form
of slavery because the companies using it aren't paying the workers
who made it.

 

[spinoza1111]

Nick Keighley a écrit : [...]

[note: I don't care if it's "open", "free" or whatever. Jacob can do
as he please with his own stuff. I'd just like it to be described
correctly]

Contrary to redhat, suse, and other companies that sell the work
of others, I sell only my work.

My software is distributed for free since 12-13 years. I have financed
all expenses, put up with all the work. I refuse however to give it away
as GNU source so that redhat or another company that thrives on open
source can sell it and profit from my work with me receiving NOTHING.

Because here there is obviously a double standard.

I see no double standard.

You provide lcc-win32 at no charge for non-commercial use.  You charge
money for commercial use.  Nobody, as far as I can remember, has ever
objected to that.

But when people point out the terms under which lcc-win32 is
available, in words entirely consistent with what you've written

When I try to earn money with my work I am a shrewd business man
always spamming, etc.

When you recommend your own product on this newsgroup bu pushing some
non-standard extension that it implements, sometimes without
acknowledging your own association with it, that's an inappropriate
use of the newsgroup.

No it is not. Constantly calling a person a troll and endangering his
meatspace relations and his relations with his family in language
isomorphic to anti-Semitism IS. Attacking Navia for mentioning his own
work, work that is useful for solving problems in the C language, IS.

[snip]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (e-mail address removed)  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Phil Carmody]

i.e. I have twisted what you wrote a tad

I don't see how it's verifiable in the context of a newsgroup, and I
don't see how it establishes credibility. If spinoza wanted to establish
credibility, why doesn't he just start writing credibly?

Which in its modified form becomes so clear it's almost self-answering.

But why haven't you all killfiled him?

Phil

 

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason a écrit :

[snips]

Richard Heathfield a écrit :
My answer was on topic. The user asked how he could use 128 bit numbers
in C. I answered that my compiler provides native support for 128 bit
numbers.

And, of course, your compiler defines C, right? After all, the question
was how to do it _in C_, not in _Jacob Navia's pet compiler_. Unless the
two are synonymous, your answer would have been wholly irrelevant.

The C standard Appendix J.5:

Common extensions

J.5.6 Other arithmetic types

1 Additional arithmetic types, such as __int128 or double double, and
their appropriate conversions are defined (6.2.5, 6.3.1). Additional
floating types may have more range or precision than long double, may be
used for evaluating expressions of other floating types, and may be used
to define float_t or double_t.

Before spewing nonsense turn on your brain, read the standard, think
a bit.

I repeat: My answer was ON TOPIC, and it is not YOU that defines C,
nor heathfield either.

 

[Squeamizh]

Richard Heathfield a écrit : [...]

Irrelevant. If you were earning a million fra... oh, sorry, a
million Euros a week from your software, that would be fabulous and
I'd be very pleased for you. But this newsgroup is about C, not
about particular implementations.

Strange, strange

I have never (in all these years in this group) seen a single time
when you said that a question is off topic because it mentioned
gcc.

ALL the time we have questions asked about gcc or it is mentioned
as a solution or whatever. That's OK. Nobody complains (I don't either)..

It is only when sombody asks about 128 bit arithmetic and I answer
that lcc-win  does it that that is OFF TOPIC!

You have a point, but it's only partly valid.

A great many of the gcc-specific discussions here have to do
with how to make gcc behave as a standard-compliant compiler.
The corresponding lcc-win-specific discussions tend to be about its
non-standard extensions, such as operator overloading, qfloat, etc.

It's also relevant, I think, that the maintainers of gcc don't post
here pushing their own compiler and its non-standard extensions.

If the post under discussion had been made by someone other than Jacob
Navia, would it have been any more on-topic in your opinion?

 

[Keith Thompson]

If the post under discussion had been made by someone other than Jacob
Navia, would it have been any more on-topic in your opinion?

No. Unacknowledged self-promotion is problematic, but for reasons
other than topicality.

(That answer is off the top of my head; I reserve the right to change
my mind.)

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> That is crazy. C doesn't exist outside of implementations, and
> programmers need to know about C implementations. Navia's contribution
> would be missed if it were in its own group, and it is of potential
> interest to any C programmer.

Except for those (like me) that do not have a platform on which it will
execute.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Richard Heathfield a écrit : ....
>
> I have never (in all these years in this group) seen a single time
> when you said that a question is off topic because it mentioned
> gcc.

One additional point:

Everybody is able to get and use gcc for free, even if it is for
commercial and/or educational use. That is, the compiler is actually
free and comes with complete source. And nobody from the developers
will ever earn anything for their work.

When you mention Redhat, Suse and others: what they provide (and what
is not so easy to obtain, but can be done), is a complete operating
system. They provide you with it, complete, and they ask money for
that. However, if you are willing to obtain the individual parts and
glue them together, you can do so for free, which I have done for early
versions of gcc and other gnu-tools.

My institute elected to supply some 200 of the about 250 computers
present with variants of Linux, all from bundled versions, like Fedora,
Debian, Suse and some others. (The remainder, mostly not used in
research have some version of Windows installed.)

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> I support you here! Much of open source is a genteel and tranched form
> of slavery because the companies using it aren't paying the workers
> who made it.

Well, eh, no. Be aware that there are lots of people willing to work on
things in their own time and willing to give away what they made for free.
I have written a long time ago (in my own free time) a number of utilities
to deal with file communication from MacOS before X. Like unpacking file
archives, etc.. I have put that available on my ftp site a long time ago.
When Debian asked whether they were allowed to include it in their packaging
I just said: "yes, go ahead". I had no problem with that. I do not see
that some form of slavery was involved, I have written the package in my
own free time and provided it of my own free will for free to everybody
interested. You can also have a look at my website where I provide for
free a lot of information that is interesting to (at least) some people.
I have put in it a lot of work, but again, in my own time. That it is
hosted on the website of my institute is normal at the CWI. You are allowed
to provide any personal information (within the limits of the law and
courtesy) on your personal part of the website.

I agree that Jacob Navia is doing something similar, the main difference
is that he asks for money for some kind of uses. I do not, and will not,
ask for any money for using my stuff for whatever purpose. There is only
one problematical point: copyright. By the Dutch laws on copyright,
everything is copyrighted by me and I am (again by Dutch law) not able
to put it in the public domain (a concept not really existing in Dutch
law). On the other hand, the stuff I did for my institute I can not give
away, because, again by Dutch law, the copyright on that is with my
institute. So when you want to see the primality testing program I wrote
(together with Arjen Lenstra) I have to refer you to my institute.