read image from url

[quickcur]

jacob navia said:




Do you really not understand the difference between suggesting someone
else's product and suggesting your own? It was not libcurl's author who
recommended it here.




It is because libcurl is /not/ standard C that those bright enough to
recommend it are also bright enough to suggest that discussion thereof
should be taken up in a more appropriate group.

Dear Richard-

I think you're being quite hard on Jacob here.

I actually looked at libcurl, but it seems incredibly complicated - very
low-level, you basically have to do the HTTP transaction by hand.
Jacob's library is much simpler to use, so I think it's good for him to
mention it as a better solution.

Jacob also was aware of the strange wish of many posters in this thread
to limit discussion in this group, and it was me who wanted the answer
to my question preserved in the group archives to help people in future
who have the same problem.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

quickcur said:

I think you're being quite hard on Jacob here.

Thanks for the heads-up. I disagree.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

quickcur said:



Thanks for the heads-up. I disagree.

You really are an obnoxious little man, aren't you?

 

[jacob navia]

Flash Gordon said:



I don't care what it looks like. What it *is* is an expression of
disapproval of his treating this newsgroup as a commercial channel.

It would be commercial if I would be selling something!

I'm not selling anything

Get a life chap

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

It would be commercial if I would be selling something!

I'm not selling anything

From the lcc-win32 Web site:
"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence.
Professional use is: * Related to business (e.g you use it in a
corporation) * If you sell your software. If you plan to use lcc-win32 in
courses of programming in your University, contact us for special
educational rates."

So you're selling (or at least trying to sell) licences.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You really are an obnoxious little man, aren't you?

A first class loony toon, he is.

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia said:


From the lcc-win32 Web site:
"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence.
Professional use is: * Related to business (e.g you use it in a
corporation) * If you sell your software. If you plan to use lcc-win32 in
courses of programming in your University, contact us for special
educational rates."

So you're selling (or at least trying to sell) licences.

But not here. The people I advise here get the software for free.
And, as far as I know, I am not doing anything illegal by earning
honestly my life with my work.

And if you do not like my posts,n for the nth time just do not
read them dam it!

 

[Antoninus Twink]

A first class loony toon, he is.

He might be Scrooge reincarnated as a net-nannying topic-cop who uses
sock puppets to conduct anti-semitic campaigns in technical newsgroups.

Nothing like a HeathField/Navia flame war to get you into the Christmas
spirit!

 

[Default User]

quickcur wrote:

I don't want to make you get flamed in the group - but my feeling is
that when a question comes up it's better to have the answer in the
group rather than personal email, so that it's an archive where
people with the same problem in future can also find help.

That's true, in a newsgroup where the discussion is on-topic. It is not
on-topic here. Continuing to pursue it will get ignored or killfiled by
the people you THINK could help you. Then you won't get any help for
things that are on-topic.





Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

The people I advise here get the software for free.

You know as well as I do that increasing your user base is a necessary
precursor to increasing your licence fees.

And, as far as I know, I am not doing anything illegal by earning
honestly my life with my work.

Nobody has claimed otherwise.

And if you do not like my posts,n for the nth time just do not
read them dam it!

Obviously you'd prefer not to be criticised for your unethical behaviour;
anyone can see that. But if you don't like my criticisms, you can always
ignore them, right?

 

[Golden California Girls]

That's true, in a newsgroup where the discussion is on-topic. It is not
on-topic here. Continuing to pursue it will get ignored or killfiled by
the people you THINK could help you. Then you won't get any help for
things that are on-topic.





Brian

You mean you don't know how to ignore thread and assume everyone else can't either?

The mind boggles.

 

[quickcur]

quickcur wrote:





That's true, in a newsgroup where the discussion is on-topic. It is not
on-topic here. Continuing to pursue it will get ignored or killfiled by
the people you THINK could help you. Then you won't get any help for
things that are on-topic.





Brian

Dear Brian-

I think that seems reasonable, but in this case we started with an
on-topic question, but eventually the discussion turned to something
that's perhaps off-topic, so I still think it makes sense to keep the
whole discussion in one place, rather than splitting it off into private
email.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

quickcur said:

I think that seems reasonable, but in this case we started with an
on-topic question,

No, we didn't - or at least, the only topical answer was "try asking in
more relevant groups". One or two people (including myself) stretched a
point in an effort to help you out, but that doesn't mean that networking
questions are topical here.

 

[quickcur]

quickcur said:




No, we didn't - or at least, the only topical answer was "try asking in
more relevant groups". One or two people (including myself) stretched a
point in an effort to help you out, but that doesn't mean that networking
questions are topical here.

Dear Richard-

It's been a long thread, but if you go right back to the first message,
I was asking about downloading an image into a memory buffer *in C/C++*

It was only later that we started discussing Jacob's libraries rather
than general C techniques.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

quickcur said:

Dear Richard-

It's been a long thread, but if you go right back to the first message,

Yes, I did. I try hard to check my facts before posting.

I was asking about downloading an image into a memory buffer *in C/C++*

Yes. Strictly speaking, C itself doesn't provide a way to do this, so it is
necessary to use implementation extensions or third-party libraries, which
are not topical here in comp.lang.c, where only the core language and
standard library is discussed. That's why the only correct topical answer
is "try asking in more relevant groups".

 

[CBFalconer]

(e-mail address removed) said:

Nevertheless, third-party libraries (such as libcurl) exist that
can help him to do what he needs, quickly and easily. Yes, it's
true that such libraries are not topical here, but saying "Cannot
be done" conveys a false impression. As a matter of fact, there
is nothing about ISO C that prevents a portable solution from
being written, provided one is prepared to delegate to some
external system the responsibility for attaching standard input
and output to a remote server. (This can certainly be done on
some systems.)

I feel that third party libraries are discussable, PROVIDED that
they are available in ISO std source form, and that that source
location is clearly discosed. If not in standard C they are,
again, some system limited package, and MAY be usable as long as
the areas of incompatibility are obvious and correctible for
another system.

Such things as libcurl (I am not familiar with it, so don't
criticize mistakes here, but do correct them) may only require some
facilities, such as TCP access, from further system specific
libraries. Other areas, such as GUI control, vary widely and are
not usually suitable for c.l.c.

 

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:
.... snip ...
.... snip ...

I don't want to make you get flamed in the group - but my
feeling is that when a question comes up it's better to have the
answer in the group rather than personal email, so that it's an
archive where people with the same problem in future can also
find help.

Your attitude is fine, but the newsgroup is wrong. This group
deals strictly with ISO standard C. The newsgroup
<is available and is quite satisfactory
for this compiler specific discussion. It is also recorded in such
archives as google (and others).

 

[CBFalconer]

Default User wrote:
.... snip ...


I think that seems reasonable, but in this case we started with an
on-topic question, but eventually the discussion turned to
something that's perhaps off-topic, so I still think it makes
sense to keep the whole discussion in one place, rather than
splitting it off into private email.

No, it was NEVER on-topic. URLs are not mentioned in any ISO C
standard. You were not criticized originally due to ignorance on
your part. That is no longer true. You have been advised about
proper newsgroups (comp.compilers.lcc) and Jacob has even given you
a direct access email address (which is not the best solution).

 

[CBFalconer]

Flash Gordon said:



I don't care what it looks like. What it *is* is an expression of
disapproval of his treating this newsgroup as a commercial channel.

He didn't, at least not in this thread. Give credit where due.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

You mean you don't know how to ignore thread and assume everyone else
can't either?

Ignoring the thread is counterproductive, both for the OP and for the
group. The OP may get some answers, which may be completely wrong -
though he won't know - and the errors may go uncorrected since the
experts at (whatever) don't hang out here.

However The OP will be encouraged to ask offtopic questions here again.
This will lead to the group being flooded with offtopic stuff, the s-to-n
ratio going to zero and the knowledgeable people giving up on the group.
Eventually it will become completely useless as a source of knowledge
about C.
This has happened before.