microsoft visual c++

[Eric Sosman]

I neither know nor care. You run into the same problem of defining what
is and is not a C program whatever you call C anyway, like "this posting
is a C program because I intend to see how well it fits the ISO C
standard."

Point is though, that if one wants a definition of what is or is not C,
intent looks as reasonable as anything.

So, then, is this a C program?

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
const char *addressee = "world";
puts ("Hello, %s!\n", addresee);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

The intent, I hope, is clear -- but to my way of thinking,
it's not C.

 

[pete]

So, then, is this a C program?

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
const char *addressee = "world";
puts ("Hello, %s!\n", addresee);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

The intent, I hope, is clear -- but to my way of thinking,
it's not C.

Keith Thompson suggested the term "meaningless C program"
but I prefer to call text like that
"gibberish that looks like a C program".

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

That is just an indication that the OP is ignorant of what is and
is not topical here. He needs to be informed.

Fine, if people would relax a bit about what is on/off-topic. But
that's beside the point in this particular quote, I was referring to
Richard's claim that being off-topic made the answers were incorrect.

Answering the off-topic question just encourages the bad behaviour by
him or others.

Posting out of ignorance is not bad behavior. Posting out of ignorance
is a significant part of what this group is _for_.

As for bad behavior, one example of that is to start out by expecting
people to behave badly just because they made a mistake. Any society
gets better along if one starts out by expecting people to behave well,
within some loose limits, and _then_ slap down the offenders.

And what bad behavior do you refer to anyway? I originally thought the
point of this topicness insistence to keep up the ratio of on-topic
posts. If that's what you mean, my original point remains that the
topicness postings generate a lot more noise. Or if you mean posting
"incorrect" information which is "incorrect" just because it's not about
standard C, well as I've said that makes little sense to me.

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

So, then, is this a C program?

Again, I don't care. I'm not the one who wants a strict definition of
what kind of programs one can post here. However in this case...

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
const char *addressee = "world";
puts ("Hello, %s!\n", addresee);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

The intent, I hope, is clear -- but to my way of thinking,
it's not C.

Not even a syntax error, only semantic errors. I'd call it a C program.

If that's not a C program, where do _you_ put the limit for whether it's
a C program? Must compile without errors? Not more than some fraction
of errors? Or do you too not care?

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

That's also a "conforming program", as far as I can tell, (...)

My point is that the term "conforming program" is, IMHO, too broad to
be particularly useful. There should be a category of programs that
are acceptable to all possible conforming implementations without
necessarily being strictly conforming. (...)

Oh, I see. Yes, that makes sense.

But we were talking about, um, (looking back up to the Subject line)
topicality. So, to get back to that, in my opinion, discussion
of the fact that your program above is a "conforming program" is
certainly topical, but a discussion of the specific semantics of
"__attribute__((pure))" would not be.

Fine by me, if some people wouldn't get so fierce about it.

More generally, discussion of the fact that extensions are allowed,
and what form they can take in a conforming implementation, is
topical; discussion of specific extensions is more appropriate in a
system-specific or compiler-specific newsgroup.

Fine, but that does not translate to "never discuss it", nor to "do not
give any information about it once you are answering anyway". I'm not
aware of any evidence that "off-topic" postings are nearly as much
of a problem as topicness postings.

To go back to your earlier example, we can't just say that "void
main()" is invalid, illegal, bad, evil, etc. We have to acknowledge
that an implementation is allowed to support it, but it's non-portable
and there's rarely a good reason to use it in a program intended for a
hosted implementation.

Fine.

 

[Chris Torek]

Not even a syntax error, only semantic errors. I'd call it a C program.

I can only answer for myself, but I would call this a "broken C
program" in most cases.

If that's not a C program, where do _you_ put the limit for whether it's
a C program?

I think one must take "intent" into account. If someone writes:

int main(vodi) {
/* a bunch of correct stuff here */
}

it seems obvious that "vodi" was a typo for "void", not an intentional
mis-spelling, or use of a new bizarre keyword in the "C-=42" language.
On the other hand, if the author of the code tells you: "No, that was
intentional, this is the use of a new bizarre keyword in the C-=42
language", then what seemed obvious is in fact wrong, and it is not
a C program, but rather a C-=42 program.

Intent is inherently impossible to ascertain with certainty. One
can ask the intend-er, but even then, he/she/it could lie. In many
cases, though, one can guess pretty well, and it seems appropriate
to believe any "statements of intent" made by the intend-er.

Note that "intent" applies to compilers as well. A C99 compiler
that gets something wrong by mistake is (to me) still "a C99
compiler" (or perhaps "a broken C99 compiler"), but GCC -- which
intentionally violates several C99-isms -- is *not* a C99 compiler,
not even with -std=c99. Compare this with "gcc -std=c89 -pedantic",
which *does* intend to be a C89 compiler: if it gets something
wrong, it is just a bug, not an intentional violation of some
requirement.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson writes: [...]

More generally, discussion of the fact that extensions are allowed,
and what form they can take in a conforming implementation, is
topical; discussion of specific extensions is more appropriate in a
system-specific or compiler-specific newsgroup.

Fine, but that does not translate to "never discuss it", nor to "do not
give any information about it once you are answering anyway". I'm not
aware of any evidence that "off-topic" postings are nearly as much
of a problem as topicness postings.

[...]

But there is such evidence. Though I didn't witness it, some years
ago comp.lang.c++ nearly died because of a flood of postings about
system-specific issues. Those who wanted to talk about the language
itself were unable to do so because of the sheer volume of postings
about anything and everything even vaguely related to C++.

Even here, a number of the old regulars have left, though I don't know
their reasons for doing so.

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Fine, but that does not translate to "never discuss it", nor to "do not
give any information about it once you are answering anyway". I'm not
aware of any evidence that "off-topic" postings are nearly as much
of a problem as topicness postings.

[...]

But there is such evidence. Though I didn't witness it, some years
ago comp.lang.c++ nearly died because of a flood of postings about
system-specific issues. Those who wanted to talk about the language
itself were unable to do so because of the sheer volume of postings
about anything and everything even vaguely related to C++.

Hm. Then I can at least understand where this unfriendliness to OT
postings comes from, but it seems quite excessive to me. The perfect
solution to a problem usually isn't to do exactly the opposite.

Besides, it doesn't sound like telling the OT folks to go elsewhere
helped. But since neither of us witnessed it, maybe we shouldn't
speculate too much about whether it really was was sim Was that what
prompted the creation of comp.lang.c++.moderated?

And note that the anti-OT postings I'm objecting to tend to _increase_
the noise level, not decrease it. Richard has in any case said that
that the nose level was not his chief concern in going on about OT
topics, but avoiding to mislead people.

Even here, a number of the old regulars have left, though I don't know
their reasons for doing so.

Nor do I, so I might just as well speculate that some may have left
because of the same reason I find this group a bit unpleasant at times:
Unfriendliness response to OT postings and replies.

 

[CBFalconer]

Eric Sosman writes:
.... snip ...

Again, I don't care. I'm not the one who wants a strict definition
of what kind of programs one can post here. However in this case...


Not even a syntax error, only semantic errors. I'd call it a C
program.

If that's not a C program, where do _you_ put the limit for whether
it's a C program? Must compile without errors? Not more than some
fraction of errors? Or do you too not care?

It's an erroneous C program. All the problems can be answered by
reference to the C standard. Nothing more is needed. No guessing
is involved.

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

It's an erroneous C program.

Yes, I can tell it's errenous. I was answering what I assumed was a
yes/no question of whether it was a C program.

All the problems can be answered by reference to the C standard.
Nothing more is needed. No guessing is involved.

Which is exactly what I'm protesting against, and it wouldn't _matter_
if The Definition you claimed was "The C standard and C compilers" or
whatever. What I dislike is the the unfriendly and carefully unhelpful
responses to postings, and even answers, that are deemed "off-topic" by
whatever The Definition is.

I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but I
do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Which is exactly what I'm protesting against, and it wouldn't _matter_
if The Definition you claimed was "The C standard and C compilers" or
whatever. What I dislike is the the unfriendly and carefully unhelpful
responses to postings, and even answers, that are deemed "off-topic" by
whatever The Definition is.

It's just the way it is. Live with it - and, as I have, come to love
it. The regs don't like it though, if you actually get into their crazy
ways.

I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but I
do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

It's been this way since at least the early/mid 90s.
It *would* be an interesting bit of archaelogy to find out exactly how
and why it happened. Anyone know?

 

[Default User]

Yes, I can tell it's errenous. I was answering what I assumed was a
yes/no question of whether it was a C program.


Which is exactly what I'm protesting against, and it wouldn't matter
if The Definition you claimed was "The C standard and C compilers" or
whatever. What I dislike is the the unfriendly and carefully
unhelpful responses to postings, and even answers, that are deemed
"off-topic" by whatever The Definition is.

I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but
I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.




Brian

 

[Richard Tobin]

I don't remember who came and imposed The Definition when anyway, but
I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful before that.

[/QUOTE]

When exactly do you think this glorious golden age was? I'm been
participating since 1999, at it was about the same then.

The 1980s.

-- Richard

 

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any of
these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people who
dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to be more
of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I didn't search
all that much.

The 1980s.

Google shows non-ISO C matters still going strong 1996 - perhaps a bit
too strong. In 1997, a message "Welcome to comp.lang.c!" appeared
which included the text
"First of all, please keep in mind that comp.lang.c is a group for
discussion of general issues of the C programming language, as
defined by the ANSI/ISO language standard."
and redirects to elsewhere took a definite upwards turn, but but I
don't see that turn anyone hostile to non-ISO C matters. Besides,
that welcome message was helpful in itself with a list of other groups
to post "off-topic" matters to.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any of
these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people who
dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to be more
of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I didn't search
all that much.

As I posted earlier, the *idea* that this ng be completely devoid of
contact with the real world (and hence useless) has been around since at
least the early 90s. However, the level of fanaticism connected to that
belief hadn't really reached full maturity until around the beginning of
this decade (/century/millennium).

As with most fanatical religious programs, this has been accomplished
through the purging of any but the most devout followers of the creed.

 

[Default User]

but >>> I do remember the group seemed friendlier and more useful
before that.

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any
of these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people
who dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to
be more of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I
didn't search all that much.

Your statement is rubbish, because it completely mischaracterizes what
CURRENTLY goes on. Yes, that sort of thing didn't happen much in the
old, but then it doesn't now.



Brian

 

[Randy Howard]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote

Are you sure? I've browsed Google Groups for 1999 a bit and found
generally helpful answers to non-Standard C questions. Redirects to
other groups, and direct answers and combinations. I didn't see any of
these carefully unhelpful answers or jumping up and down on people who
dare mention non-Standard C matters. The obnoxiousness seems to be more
of the "read the FAQ, you puke" kind. But admittedly I didn't search
all that much.

Hmm, the Dan Pop-ification of ClC is/was a slippery slope?