[more of the same]
[more of the same]
B. L.: I have a serious question for you. I seem to recall that,
in the past, you've made posts here that were actually about C.
The vast majority if your recent posts have been (a) not about C,
and (b) responses to "spinoza1111"'s posts (which, as we've seen,
simply encourage him to post more of his nonsense).
Are you here to discuss C? To put it another way, if I were
to filter out all your articles, would I risk missing anything
interesting or useful? I'd rather not do that, but at this point
I'm seriously considering it.
"Thanks, I needed that" ?
"I'm trying." "Yes, very." ?
I think I've rather lost track lately of why I'm "here". Thanks
for the reminder that there's a limit to how much topic drift the
regulars will tolerate. I could blame the influence of a couple
of other groups I follow, where as one of the regulars put it
"topic drift is practically an organizing principle", but -- nah.
There seems to be an informal rule here that personal destruction and
hatred is ALWAYS on topic. If one finds an illuminating political
aspect to the way programming is organized, or relates the origin of
object-oriented programming in the need for Kyrsten Nygaard to
document procedures for Danish labor unions (citing the New York
Times), that's somehow "topic drift". But Keith Thompson constant
snarling is not "off-topic"...because loudmouth thugs here get a free
pass from the enablers.
If you clowns were truly "on topic", you would discuss C for systems
programming alone, for even applications programming would necessitate
getting "off topic" in the sense of having a clue about the
application. But even systems programming would be "off topic"...if it
strayed into an area that would expose the regs' ignorance, as in the
case, recently, where the regs told a person with a question about
yacc to take a hike.
Thompson is offside each and every time he snarls that I'm a troll,
since that too is off-topic. Like Seebach, he doesn't have the balls
to directly address me, because the basic reason for his opinion of me
is his puzzlement...that someone could master programming (something
which takes most posters here an extraordinarily long time, and which
isn't mastered at all by others) and have enough time left over to
read Hannah Arendt and the New York Times.
Of course, for intelligent people, programming is something mastered
quickly once understood as a separate concern from computer science on
the one hand, or applications on the other. This may be why it is
complicated needlessly by programmers who insist on shibboleths and on
inappropriately using outdated languages. This is a cover up for their
ignorance and incompetence, which in Thompson's case was on display
when he approved Seebach's famous one line and off by one strlen().
}