Split the newsgroup.

[Rod Pemberton]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to
split the newsgroup. I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86. With
the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated newsgroup for
advanced C users wouldn't be successful.


Rod Pemberton

 

[Jack Klein]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to

Gibberish, use of an undefined subjective term "higher level" which
has a specific meaning only in the poster's mind. Obviously lacking
elementary logic.

split the newsgroup. I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86. With
the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated newsgroup for
advanced C users wouldn't be successful.

There is already alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ which is useful to
beginners, and there is comp.lang.c.moderated where Seebs does his
best to hold down the noise level.

A group moderated to only allow posts by "experts" is far too likely
to be abused by a moderator. Moderating for topicality is
considerably easier than moderating for "expertness", which can be all
too subjective.

 

[MrG{DRGN}]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the
group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to
split the newsgroup. I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86. With
the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated newsgroup
for
advanced C users wouldn't be successful.

We already have a successful moderated newsgroup called
comp.lang.c.moderated. I see no reason to be elitist, and have a group just
for experts. After all, if everyone were an expert in the group then there
would not be much to discuss.



--
MrG{DRGN}



Onward through the fog!!

 

[Michael Mair]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to
split the newsgroup.

???
Please define what you consider a "higher level".
If you just want a place to discuss things outside the scope
of comp.lang.c, then say so.
Apart from that, you are naming two groups which may, depending
on your definition of "taking to a higher level", not cover
all or even a major part of the participants.

For learners, there already _is_ a newsgroup,
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++

I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86. With
the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated newsgroup for
advanced C users wouldn't be successful.

Once again, I am not sure what you are aiming at.
Why do you feel that experts should not be bothered by the
lowly learners? Or that experts need someone to chew their
meat before they get it on their plate?

Please define clearly and concisely the potential participants
of each group. Explain the reason why you want to have one of
the groups moderated. Define the scope of each of the
newsgroups.

BTW: Connecting this post to your replies in other threads
makes it seem more likely that you are wishing for a newsgroup
discussing typical extensions and how they work and can be
used in different implementations.


Cheers
Michael

 

[Vladimir S. Oka]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the
group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time
to
split the newsgroup. I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86.
With the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated
newsgroup for advanced C users wouldn't be successful.

IMHO, you're probably overreacting a bit, but that's subjective.

I also believe that the only thing possibly making sense would be adding
a few groups of type:

comp.lang.c.extensions.*

But then, come to I think of it, most (all?) of the questions about
non-standard C extensions revolve around particular OSes, compilers, or
programming methods. All of these /already/ have newsgroups dedicated
to them. Also, quite a few of the questions seem to be language
independent, anyway. So, to me, it makes more sense for the answers to
be given in groups with expertise in the subject matter, and only broad
familiarity with the language in question (if any). In other words, I
hardly think that any change is warranted.

As for the attitude towards learners, I don't see there's anything wrong
with it here, provided the OP shows that they /are/ willing to learn,
and not just asking for someone else to do their (home)work. Also, when
you come to someone for help, it's only polite to stick to the accepted
forms. Do brick-and-mortar schools change their way of teaching because
"students know better"? Once some simple forms are fulfilled, help
provided here is, I think, of very high quality.

My tuppence into the wishing well, anyway... ;-)

Cheers

Vladimir

 

[Rod Pemberton]

to

Gibberish, use of an undefined subjective term "higher level" which
has a specific meaning only in the poster's mind. Obviously lacking
elementary logic.

I vague reference to a couple of people declaring themselves to be experts.

A group moderated to only allow posts by "experts" is far too likely
to be abused by a moderator. Moderating for topicality is
considerably easier than moderating for "expertness", which can be all
too subjective.

That was the whole point of my post. This newsgroup is unmoderated, but
there are a number of individuals who seem to be interested in moderating it
by declaring everything off-topic. If you're interested in filtering
"off-topic" posts, a moderated group is the place to do it.

Thank you for validating my argument.


Rod Pemberton

 

[Rod Pemberton]

We already have a successful moderated newsgroup called
comp.lang.c.moderated. I see no reason to be elitist, and have a group just
for experts. After all, if everyone were an expert in the group then there
would not be much to discuss.

That's part of the point. There is nothing to discuss because some people
keep declaring everything off-topic.


Rod Pemberton

 

[Barry]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to
split the newsgroup. I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86. With
the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated newsgroup for
advanced C users wouldn't be successful.


Rod Pemberton

It seems like a group along the lines of

comp.programmer.c

would be reasonble, but most of the answers can already be
found by sending posters to the groups that already exist.

 

[Nick Keighley]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to
split the newsgroup. I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

perhaps what is needed is

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.rod_pemberton_extensions (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86. With
the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated newsgroup for
advanced C users wouldn't be successful.

I propose you moderate it. This way there would be at least one reader

 

[Kenny McCormack]

It seems like a group along the lines of

comp.programmer.c

This is a very good idea!
You could even make the arguement that a group that has ".lang" in its name
is/should be for the abstract discussion of the language qua language, not
for discussion of anything useful. (A definition which, of course, fits
clc very well)

would be reasonble, but most of the answers can already be
found by sending posters to the groups that already exist.

The problem with this "Oh, we'll just redirect them to
microsoft.public.whatever" approach is that there exists situations that
are "neither fish nor fowl" - that is, don't fit into either of two
disparate camps. I.e., neither will have it.

A good example (just an example, does not have direct congruence with
anything being discussed here) is that of Cygwin. Specifically, the Cygwin
shell, which is sort of, but not quite, the same environment as using bash
on a real Unix/Linux system. People ask Cygwin questions in Unix
newsgroups and are (and should be told) "Cygwin is not Unix - go ask in
a Winders group!"

But, of course, we all know that if they go asking in a Winders group, no
one is going to have any idea what they are talking about, because Winders
folks, by definition, aren't smart enough to know anything about shell
programming and such "Unix-y" things. A clear instance of "neither fish
nor fowl".

 

[Michael Mair]

The problem with this "Oh, we'll just redirect them to
microsoft.public.whatever" approach is that there exists situations that
are "neither fish nor fowl" - that is, don't fit into either of two
disparate camps. I.e., neither will have it.

A good example (just an example, does not have direct congruence with
anything being discussed here) is that of Cygwin. Specifically, the Cygwin
shell, which is sort of, but not quite, the same environment as using bash
on a real Unix/Linux system. People ask Cygwin questions in Unix
newsgroups and are (and should be told) "Cygwin is not Unix - go ask in
a Winders group!"

But, of course, we all know that if they go asking in a Winders group, no
one is going to have any idea what they are talking about, because Winders
folks, by definition, aren't smart enough to know anything about shell
programming and such "Unix-y" things. A clear instance of "neither fish
nor fowl".

This is a good point.

Interestingly,, I have asked only one truly on-topic question in
clc yet -- the rest was semitopical, "neither fish nor fowl".
I did describe my previous line of research and why I asked here
in the end (or as second choice when the first choice did not
turn up anything useful).
The responses were sensible.

This is, however, only my personal experience.

If we discuss fowl around here, then I think that it is alright
to redirect questions which are mostly fishy somewhere else.


Cheers
Michael

 

[Jordan Abel]

A good example (just an example, does not have direct congruence with
anything being discussed here) is that of Cygwin. Specifically, the Cygwin
shell, which is sort of, but not quite, the same environment as using bash
on a real Unix/Linux system. People ask Cygwin questions in Unix
newsgroups and are (and should be told) "Cygwin is not Unix - go ask in
a Winders group!"

That's a bad example since cygwin is as "Unix" as linux is, and the
latter is routinely accepted in those newsgroups.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

That's a bad example since cygwin is as "Unix" as linux is, and the
latter is routinely accepted in those newsgroups.

You are wrong on both counts, but let's not argue it further. (*)

I might go as far as to say that people tolerate Cygwin questions and some
dummies even answer them, just as some dummy can always be counted on to
answer a Winders question here in clc - but we all know it is OT.

(*) And if you are doing the "Linux is not Unix" BS, then you really are
pathetic.

 

[Ian Collins]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to
split the newsgroup. I'd suggest the following:

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)
comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

Chuck Crayne has a successful moderated newsgroup comp.lang.asm.x86. With
the volume of traffic here, there is no reason why a moderated newsgroup for
advanced C users wouldn't be successful.

Seeing as there is already a moderated group, why bother. If everyone
showed a little restraint here, the noise level would drop considerably.

 

[Jordan Abel]

You are wrong on both counts, but let's not argue it further. (*)

I might go as far as to say that people tolerate Cygwin questions and some
dummies even answer them, just as some dummy can always be counted on to
answer a Winders question here in clc - but we all know it is OT.

OK, I'll bite. What makes cygwin "non-unix"? Define in a way that does
not apply to Linux equally, and is not circular.

(*) And if you are doing the "Linux is not Unix" BS, then you really are
pathetic.

The only possible 'second count' that you have for me to be "wrong on
both counts" requires you to be either doing that "BS" or accusing
comp.unix.* as a whole of that "BS"

 

[Flash Gordon]

That's a bad example since cygwin is as "Unix" as linux is, and the
latter is routinely accepted in those newsgroups.

Actually it isn't since Cygwin is a lot further from Unix than Linux is,
but Kenny's example is bad anyway.

There are perfectly good Cygwin mailing lists where, obviously, Cygwin
questions are topical.

The shell is bash, and there are perfectly good places to discus bash.

The compiler is gcc, and there are perfectly good places to discus gcc
(here for the standard C elements, GNU lists etc for the rest).

 

[Flash Gordon]

That's part of the point. There is nothing to discuss because some people
keep declaring everything off-topic.

No, there is plenty that is not declared off topic because there is
plenty you can do with standard C.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

(someone else pointed out, truthfully, that the emperor has no clothes)

No, there is plenty that is not declared off topic because there is
plenty you can do with standard C.

You just keep on saying that, even though you don't believe it.
If you stop saying it, this ng will cease to be; it will disappear in
a puff of logic.

And as proof, I will point you to threads in the not too distant past where
the question was asked: Is there anything (non-trivial) that you can do in
pure standard C? Some of the best minds (such as they are) on the ng,
struggled with this and eventually came up with a few scatterered examples,
nothing significant, of course, but impressive nonetheless (that they could
come up with anything).

 

[Ian Collins]

You are wrong on both counts, but let's not argue it further. (*)

I might go as far as to say that people tolerate Cygwin questions and some
dummies even answer them, just as some dummy can always be counted on to
answer a Winders question here in clc - but we all know it is OT.

cygwin questions would be welcome on comp.unix.programmer. Unlike here,
that is a reasonably polite forum.

Let's stick to helping people with C questions and drop the insults,
they do nobody any favours.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

It seems there is a strong division between those who want to take the group
to a higher level and those who are just learning. Perhaps, it's time to
split the newsgroup.

Troll alert.

comp.lang.c (unmoderated)

This group already exists. You're in it. You don't like it. Whats your
point?

comp.lang.c.experts (moderated)

There's already comp.lang.learn.c-c++, which is a moderated group, so
how would adding an extra moribund moderated group benefit anyone?

But sure, feel free to form your own new group comp.lang.c.rod or
whatever you like.

But don't expect to hijack this one just because you get a rough time
when you post offtopic stuff.
Mark McIntyre