The problems in comp.lang.c

[Jeff P. Bailey]

Dear everyone

I've been lurking in this group for a few weeks now. Originally I had a
question to ask (about atomic/threadsafe operations in C), and I wanted
to get the feel of the newsgroup first. In fact I've got to know it well
enough that I realize there's no point in even asking my question, which
would be vilified as "off topic".

From what I have observed, this group has big problems. There are some
positive posters here (I'd especially like to thank jacob navia for his
very interesting and useful long posts on stacks and debuggers), but
there seem to be many many more people here who post only to be
negative.

The main example seems to be Richard Heathfield - I don't know what the
history of it is, but he obviously has a deep personal hatred of jacob
navia, and this dominates his posting. Most of his insults are pretty
puerile, but this constant negativity really seems to bring down the
atmosphere.

Then there are lots of other people with a bizarre view of what
is "on topic" and "off topic", where fundamental concepts of C are (for
their own completely arbitrary reasons) verboten in this group. This
stupidity will drive away ordinary C programmers who might want to share
their knowledge and experience!

I wish people would see what a useful resource this group could be if it
weren't for a noisy minority of morons who spoil it for everyone else
with their negativity and aggression towards other views.

Jeff

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Jeff P. Bailey said:

Dear everyone

I've been lurking in this group for a few weeks now. Originally I had a
question to ask (about atomic/threadsafe operations in C), and I wanted
to get the feel of the newsgroup first. In fact I've got to know it well
enough that I realize there's no point in even asking my question, which
would be vilified as "off topic".

Not vilified, no - but surely it makes sense to ask your question in the
place where you're most likely to get effective help? The C language, as
you have undoubtedly discovered by now, doesn't provide an answer for your
question - but a newsgroup such as comp.programming.threads may well be
able to provide just such an answer.

From what I have observed, this group has big problems.

Only a few. I could name them, but I won't bother. Most of them are in my
killfile anyway. You can tell them by their signal/noise ratio, which is
almost invariably very low indeed.

There are some
positive posters here (I'd especially like to thank jacob navia for his
very interesting and useful long posts on stacks and debuggers),

If someone posted long, interesting and useful articles on agricultural
machinery and agrarian economics here, would you thank them for that? And
if they yelled abuse at almost anyone who dared to disagree with them,
would you thank them for /that/?

but
there seem to be many many more people here who post only to be
negative.

The main example seems to be Richard Heathfield

If you think I post here to be negative, you haven't read many of my
articles.

- I don't know what the
history of it is, but he obviously has a deep personal hatred of jacob
navia,

If you believe so, you don't know me very well. I don't hate anyone, and I
certainly don't hate Jacob Navia.

Most of his insults are pretty puerile,

Thanks for that. Most of my articles are positive and constructive, and are
designed to help people learn more about C. I try not to insult people,
but on the other hand it's difficult to maintain equanimity in the face of
such a barrage of falsehoods.

but this constant negativity really seems to bring down the
atmosphere.

The best way to change this is to contribute positive, topical, accurate,
helpful articles.

Then there are lots of other people with a bizarre view of what
is "on topic" and "off topic", where fundamental concepts of C are (for
their own completely arbitrary reasons) verboten in this group. This
stupidity will drive away ordinary C programmers who might want to share
their knowledge and experience!

The stupidity of demanding answers to non-C topics in a C newsgroup may
well end up driving the few remaining C experts in this group. Many have
already given up on clc, quite possibly in disgust at the increasingly
childish attitude of some of the people posting here.

I wish people would see what a useful resource this group could be if it
weren't for a noisy minority of morons who spoil it for everyone else
with their negativity and aggression towards other views.

Likewise, I assure you. But I think we differ over who we think the morons
are. If you don't like my articles, why not killfile me?

 

[Malcolm McLean]

The stupidity of demanding answers to non-C topics in a C newsgroup may
well end up driving the few remaining C experts in this group. Many have
already given up on clc, quite possibly in disgust at the increasingly
childish attitude of some of the people posting here.

Atomic threadsafe operations are not a "non-C topic". Nor are questions
about them non-topical. The problem is that the newsgroup deals only in
portable C, so the on-topic answer isn't terribly useful, essentially "you
can do a bit with volatile but for a real answer try comp.unix.programmer /
a Microsoft / embedded group."

 

[Morris Dovey]

Dear everyone

Ok. I feel invited to respond...

I've been lurking in this group for a few weeks now. Originally I had a
question to ask (about atomic/threadsafe operations in C), and I wanted
to get the feel of the newsgroup first. In fact I've got to know it well
enough that I realize there's no point in even asking my question, which
would be vilified as "off topic".

I don't think there'd be cause for vilification unless you
insisted on disregarding the newsgroup's long established
topicality norm - the C programming language as defined by one or
more of the published standards.

I would expect that someone familiar with those standards would
inform you that none of those language standards addresses
multi-threading or multi-tasking, and that your question could
only be meaningfully answered in the context of a particular
environment and a particular library which exist outside the
scope of all of the published C language standards.

I would also expect that you would have included enough
information about the intended environment(s) to allow
respondents to suggest newsgroups where you might get answers
from the people best qualified to provide useful answers for
those environments.

Vilification might rightly follow if you declared that you didn't
give a hoot about the established norms and intended to subject
the entire group to the rules that /you/ wanted - or if you
established a pattern of behavior essentially equivalent to that
declaration.

From what I have observed, this group has big problems. There are some
positive posters here (I'd especially like to thank jacob navia for his
very interesting and useful long posts on stacks and debuggers), but
there seem to be many many more people here who post only to be
negative.

Jacob certainly has the capability to contribute in a worthwhile
way to the newsgroup. He's also demonstrated both the capability
and willingness to disregard the group's topicality norm in order
to serve his own personal interests. While you may not find that
objectionable, it imposes an avoidable (and therefore
unreasonable) burden on those relatively few people who give
freely of their time, efforts, and expertise just to answer the
substantial volume of on-topic queries.

Stacks and debuggers are topics completely outside the scope of
the C language as specified in the standard(s). There's hardly
any doubt that these are topics of interest to C programmers -
but that does not those subjects topical here.

The main example seems to be Richard Heathfield - I don't know what the
history of it is, but he obviously has a deep personal hatred of jacob
navia, and this dominates his posting. Most of his insults are pretty
puerile, but this constant negativity really seems to bring down the
atmosphere.

I been reading Richard's articles here for years - long enough to
know something of the person. FWIW, I don't think he's foolish
enough to waste his time and energy hating anyone as harmless to
him as C programmers. He doesn't walk on water, but he has earned
the respect of the best C programmers around. If I needed to
assemble a "dream team" for a vitally important software project,
he'd be on my short list. FWIW, I once did compile such a list
and only two of more than two dozen people weren't CLC regulars.
No one here needs your (or my) approval - it's sufficent that
they're tops at what they do.

Then there are lots of other people with a bizarre view of what
is "on topic" and "off topic", where fundamental concepts of C are (for
their own completely arbitrary reasons) verboten in this group. This
stupidity will drive away ordinary C programmers who might want to share
their knowledge and experience!

Agreed - the number of people who pop into a newsgroup and think
that having a usenet connection entitles them to impose their
personal/arbitrary views on those already present is truly
amazing.

One of the most common errors of newcomers is in believing their
(perhaps long) experience in using C badly qualifies them to
instruct others in how to use the language well.

I wish people would see what a useful resource this group could be if it
weren't for a noisy minority of morons who spoil it for everyone else
with their negativity and aggression towards other views.

My experience has been that those who prefer name-calling to
quoting the standard(s) or posting standard-compliant code have
been the greatest obstacle to the group's ability to provide
honestly interested individuals with expert technical/learning
assistance.

Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to lurk and for giving me
the opportunity to welcome you and to help you better understand
the nature of the group. A less mature newcomer would probably
have been less willing to attempt understanding.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Morris Dovey said:

I been reading Richard's articles here for years - long enough to
know something of the person. [...] He doesn't walk on water,

Oh, how little you know me, Morris! In fact, I walked on water this very
morning. Admittedly it was in the form of snow, but it still counts.

<snip>

 

[santosh]

Atomic threadsafe operations are not a "non-C topic". Nor are
questions about them non-topical. The problem is that the newsgroup
deals only in portable C, so the on-topic answer isn't terribly
useful, essentially "you can do a bit with volatile but for a real
answer try comp.unix.programmer / a Microsoft / embedded group."

As I understand the next C++ standard is going to include support for
threads and there has been a proposal by P.J. Plauger to standardise
the interface of the Dinkum Threads library for C1x. So threads might
be getting close to topical here; they are certainly on topic in
comp.std.c. But for the moment the best places to go are still
comp.programming.threads, comp.programming and other platform specific
groups like comp.unix.programmer and
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32.

 

[jacob navia]

Ok. I feel invited to respond...


I don't think there'd be cause for vilification unless you
insisted on disregarding the newsgroup's long established
topicality norm - the C programming language as defined by one or
more of the published standards.

Wait. The most vocal propnents of this "topicality only"
stuff are discussing since a week about english grammar
and about whether "I have a doubt" is correct english or not.

One of them (Mr "Bau") told me that my posts about debuggers
and debugging were "OFF TOPIC" here, and several MINUTES later
sent a post to the english grammar discussion.

What is on topic DEPENDS. If you are a member of the select
group that "calls the shots" you can speak about ANYTHING.

Color of electric cables, whatever. ANYTHING will be accepted
without any complaint.

When *I* post about topics not in the standard but related to
C like debuggers, the stack, lcc-win proposals for language
extensions, etc, then, I have to suffer from the topicality
zealots.

I would expect that someone familiar with those standards would
inform you that none of those language standards addresses
multi-threading or multi-tasking, and that your question could
only be meaningfully answered in the context of a particular
environment and a particular library which exist outside the
scope of all of the published C language standards.

So what?

Most C applications today are multi-threaded and why can't
we discuss about that?

It is much more related than English grammar.

I would also expect that you would have included enough
information about the intended environment(s) to allow
respondents to suggest newsgroups where you might get answers
from the people best qualified to provide useful answers for
those environments.

This is a minor isue. If a poster omits some information,
we can ASK him/her.

Vilification might rightly follow if you declared that you didn't
give a hoot about the established norms and intended to subject
the entire group to the rules that /you/ wanted - or if you
established a pattern of behavior essentially equivalent to that
declaration.

I have tried to remain within C. But I am tired of getting flamed
because

o C99 is viewed as an error, and any code posted that uses STANDARD
C will be flamed as "non-portable" because they say that no
implementation of C99 exists, what is obviously not correct.

Jacob certainly has the capability to contribute in a worthwhile
way to the newsgroup. He's also demonstrated both the capability
and willingness to disregard the group's topicality norm in order
to serve his own personal interests.

Yes, I am vilified as a "money hungry" businessman, that sells
his software. Obviously, people like Microsoft, Red Hat, and
others never do that. "My own personal interests" lead me to
contribute in this group. The fact that my software is free
to use, that it is a very popular C99 implementation doesn't
bother you.

While you may not find that
objectionable, it imposes an avoidable (and therefore
unreasonable) burden on those relatively few people who give
freely of their time, efforts, and expertise just to answer the
substantial volume of on-topic queries.

Those people could just ignore my posts. I would be happy to
be spared the trouble of answering to the insults (my daughter
is addicted to porn, said one of them), to the stupid "off topic"
posts etc.

Stacks and debuggers are topics completely outside the scope of
the C language as specified in the standard(s).

Yes. The standard doesn't mention the word debugging, and never
specifies what happens when Undefined behavior happens. So what?

1) No implementation of C without a stack exists.
2) Debuggers are one of the most often used tools when developing
C code. Obviously "regulars in clc" never use it. So please
IGNORE my posts.

There's hardly
any doubt that these are topics of interest to C programmers -
but that does not those subjects topical here.

So, here we have it. This group, (as decided by these people)
should only discuss their boring, limited view of C, that is at best
represented by TURBOC of 1988.

"Those were the days my friend
they will never come again..."

Sniff sniff

I been reading Richard's articles here for years - long enough to
know something of the person. FWIW, I don't think he's foolish
enough to waste his time and energy hating anyone as harmless to
him as C programmers. He doesn't walk on water, but he has earned
the respect of the best C programmers around.
> If I needed to
assemble a "dream team" for a vitally important software project,
he'd be on my short list. FWIW, I once did compile such a list
and only two of more than two dozen people weren't CLC regulars.
No one here needs your (or my) approval - it's sufficent that
they're tops at what they do.

Yes, I have been forced to read the articles of that person for
some years, and I can tell you that most of the bullshit he
produces will be swallowed by his fan club without any problem.

Technically, he has some clarity of mind, and some of his
works are OK. This doesn't allow him to insult people that
do not share his stupid view of C and the C standard: C99.

I think that standard C, even if it is not implemented in
every compiler around, has many positive improvements over older
standards. I have the right to have this view, and I am
working since years for getting my small implementation up to speed.
I find it stupid (yes, that is the word) that somebody with the
technical capacities of heathfield will wage a war against
standard C.

Agreed - the number of people who pop into a newsgroup and think
that having a usenet connection entitles them to impose their
personal/arbitrary views on those already present is truly
amazing.

One of the most common errors of newcomers is in believing their
(perhaps long) experience in using C badly qualifies them to
instruct others in how to use the language well.


My experience has been that those who prefer name-calling to
quoting the standard(s) or posting standard-compliant code have
been the greatest obstacle to the group's ability to provide
honestly interested individuals with expert technical/learning
assistance.

Yes, you can quote any standard BUT the current one. C99 will be
immediately folllowed by comments "This is not portable". Just
try posting

for (int i=0; i<10; i++)

Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to lurk and for giving me
the opportunity to welcome you and to help you better understand
the nature of the group. A less mature newcomer would probably
have been less willing to attempt understanding.

That was YOUR viewpoint of this group.

I beg to differ!

 

[jacob navia]

Atomic threadsafe operations are not a "non-C topic". Nor are questions
about them non-topical. The problem is that the newsgroup deals only in
portable C, so the on-topic answer isn't terribly useful, essentially
"you can do a bit with volatile but for a real answer try
comp.unix.programmer / a Microsoft / embedded group."

But precisely, WHY do we have to have a censorship? Why can't
we speak about things that we use when programming? There
are no single threaded C programs any more since quite a long time
under any OS like Macintosh, linux, or windows.

WHO SAYS THAT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT?

The charter of this group (that I posted here several times)
specifically allows it.

 

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

[snip]

Likewise, I assure you. But I think we differ over who we think the morons
are. If you don't like my articles, why not killfile me?

I would say the same. Good advice. You could use it yourself and
stop answering my posts.

 

[Walter Roberson]

Most C applications today are multi-threaded and why can't
we discuss about that?

Is there some backing data for the claim that "Most C applications
today are multi-threaded" ? The ones I write are not -- they are
seldom even multi-processed (unless they inherently involve
networking.) Does the "most C applications" include embedded
processing?

 

[jacob navia]

Is there some backing data for the claim that "Most C applications
today are multi-threaded" ? The ones I write are not -- they are
seldom even multi-processed (unless they inherently involve
networking.)

*unless they inherently involve networking*

You see Mr Roberson?

It *is* very difficult to find a completely isolated application
anymore.

Does the "most C applications" include embedded
processing?

I couldn't even imagine one. One of the apps I wrote
was for the machines doing the selling of transportation
tickets...

o Control the serial port to receive data from the coin store
o At the same time scan the touch screen to see if the user
has pressed any choice
o At the same time control the special purpose keyboard
o At the same time use the network to see if there is any
software update ready, or another supervisor data.

If you see into ANY modern embedded application they have ALL
to be multitasking!

 

[Serve Laurijssen]

Is there some backing data for the claim that "Most C applications
today are multi-threaded" ? The ones I write are not -- they are
seldom even multi-processed (unless they inherently involve
networking.) Does the "most C applications" include embedded
processing?

More and more embedded apps are becoming multithreaded yes

 

[Walter Roberson]

*unless they inherently involve networking*

You see Mr Roberson?

It *is* very difficult to find a completely isolated application
anymore.

When I said "unless they inherently involve networking", I was
thinking of the programs I wrote to use SNMP to monitor and
analyze switches and routers while "live". Most of the
programs I wrote during that period that somehow involved networking
worked upon stored syslog files -- their topic was networking
but the programs themselves required no networking, just text files.

I did write some programs that used the Unix popen() to talk to
other processes, but no threading was involved in those at the C
level; how it was handled at the OS level was beyond the scope of
analysis of the programs, just the same way that it is not relevant
to a C program whether the implementation of an fwrite() operation
is handled by interrupts or threads or something else at the OS level.
The threading model "behind the scenes" might perhaps be of interest
in some cases where top efficiency was required (e.g., if
you were programming a game), but for the programs I write,
setting a sig_atomic_t variable in an interrupt routine is the
closest approach I need to thread-safe concerns.

 

[Eric Sosman]

But precisely, WHY do we have to have a censorship?

It is manifest that this newsgroup is not censored.

 

[Default User]

Atomic threadsafe operations are not a "non-C topic". Nor are
questions about them non-topical.

My feeling, which I've expressed many times, is that the biggest "drag"
on the group is the tendency of certain regulars to engage the trolls
and idiots in protracted debate. Chief amongst those is the Richard
Heathfield/Jacob Navia show. For the most part, completely pointless.
Navia will never change his mind on these things, and the arguments are
incredibly repetitious. I've had to resort to a filtering any post with
"Jacob" or "Navia" in the body (I guess I will have to turn it off to
see my own message or replies).

People will also engage obvious and notorious trolls like Twink, Riley,
and Kenny. I understand that in the case of the trolls and Navia, there
are statements they make that need to be countered or clarified to
prevent confusing the newbies. However, I believe form-style responses
would be better, and certainly not a debate. If people like this are
largely ignored, they may find better things to do. At the very least,
it won't generate 30-40 posts worth of crap.





Brian

 

[Kenny McCormack]

It is manifest that this newsgroup is not censored.

Apparently, in Eric's dictionary, "manifest" means "bull shit".

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Ok. I feel invited to respond...

What a load of crap.

 

[Richard]

My feeling, which I've expressed many times, is that the biggest "drag"
on the group is the tendency of certain regulars to engage the trolls
and idiots in protracted debate. Chief amongst those is the Richard
Heathfield/Jacob Navia show. For the most part, completely pointless.
Navia will never change his mind on these things, and the arguments are
incredibly repetitious. I've had to resort to a filtering any post with
"Jacob" or "Navia" in the body (I guess I will have to turn it off to
see my own message or replies).

So you sneakily use "their row" to suck up to Heathfield. Sucking up to
Heathfield does not garner you any respect as a C guru - I suspect you
are in more killfiles than anyone else since all you ever appear to do
is post self righteous dirges on topicality and annoying net nannying
posts.

Your post here being a perfect example.

People will also engage obvious and notorious trolls like Twink,
Riley,and Kenny. I understand that in the case of the trolls and
Navia, there

There people pointing out that you are a waste of bandwidth is not
trolling I am afraid.

are statements they make that need to be countered or clarified to
prevent confusing the newbies. However, I believe form-style responses
would be better, and certainly not a debate. If people like this are
largely ignored, they may find better things to do. At the very least,
it won't generate 30-40 posts worth of crap.

Brian

Another wonderful example of your lack of contribution to this
group. Well done!

 

[jacob navia]

Walter Roberson wrote:

[snip]

> Most of the
programs I wrote during that period that somehow involved networking
worked upon stored syslog files -- their topic was networking
but the programs themselves required no networking, just text files.

Granted. there *are* programs that aren't multi-threaded (a compiler
for instance ) but they are the exception to the rule...

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

But precisely, WHY do we have to have a censorship?

What censorship? Anyone can post any old garbage here, and many people do.
From time to time, one guy even posts vast amounts of paranoid ravings
about his persecution at the hands of the British security services and
the media - which I doubt whether even you would consider topical. And
nobody stops him.

The only way to censor people that stands even a remote chance of being
effective is to complain to their ISP - which *might* work if the person
in question has been astoundingly abusive, and even then most ISPs, it
seems, would rather keep their customers than take appropriate action.

Why can't
we speak about things that we use when programming? There
are no single threaded C programs any more since quite a long time
under any OS like Macintosh, linux, or windows.

WHO SAYS THAT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT?

Quite a few people. And quite a few other people disagree, and say that we
can. That's freedom for you - not everyone acts the way you would like,
and you can't censor them, and they can't censor you.

The charter of this group (that I posted here several times)
specifically allows it.

That would be the non-existent charter, presumably - comp.lang.c has never
had a charter.