The problems in comp.lang.c

[santosh]

Paulo Jorge de O. C. de Matos wrote:

I guess these are in fact, the things I use the most from C99. The
other stuff might be useful to others. I even inquired the gcc
people why C99 is so poorly [in ~10 years they still miss a couple
of features] implemented. Their reply was ... interesting but
not as clear as one would wish:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-03/msg00221.html

Interesting.

And to follow up, Paulo's respondent seems to be implying pretty
strongly that a reason for gcc's slow implementation of C99 (and for
many other implementations as well) is that C is proving to be an
ill-designed language to extend easily.

Although I don't know much about compilers, I've had the opportunity
of implementing a software verifier based on SAT techniques inside
gcc. From what I have seen gcc is a pretty big beast and quite
complex. I would even go to the point of saying that the problem might
not be [only] C as a language but GCC that was not prepared to be
extended to this point and many things start to conflict with each
other resulting in bugs and missing features. For an example, check:
http://www.nabble.com/Inline-functions-in-C99-td15789469.html

This is however, just my intuition. I have no concrete information or
proof that the problem with the C99 implementation lies with GCC.

[snip]

Okay this is an interesting view and yes, from what little I have seen
of gcc's code, it is very complex. But if the complexity of the code
were one reason for difficulty in extending gcc's feature set, then one
would presume that g++ would suffer as badly, if not more, since C++ is
a much more diffcult language to write a compiler for. However it may
be that g++ has had the benefit of a better design, perhaps learning
from some of the problems faced by gcc.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I have certainly gained a lot of knowledge from Richard Heathfield's
posts. That's all I got to say!

Please don't feed the trolls. Responding to them in any way only
increases the noise level. I suggest you just ignore them completely
(as I intend to ignore whatever embarrassingly childish responses they
post to this).

 

[Default User]

On Mar 26, 4:48 pm, Antoninus Twink <[email protected]> wrote:

[blah blah]

I don't know what made you assume that but yeah whatever floats your
boat.

It's pointless to discuss anything with a troll. He has the sole desire
to disrupt the newsgroup. You can "answer" him in any meaningful
fashion, because he doesn't care what your response is. All you do is
bring his crap into the view of those of us who killfiled him long ago.





Brian

 

[Jeff P. Bailey]

Jeff P. Bailey said:


Just because the evidence hasn't been posted in the last few days, that
doesn't mean it's absent. A few days' newsfeed is not of any particular
statistical significance.

As I said, in my opinion if you want to keep attacking Jacob's C skills,
then the onus is on you to be able to support your attacks with evidence
to outweight the existence of the lcc-win32 compiler. After all, you
need only do it once, and then if someone in the future says "Why do you
denigrate Jacob?" you can produce the same dossier.

Surely that's the wrong way round? If you want the atmosphere around here
to be more positive, *make* it so by posting positive articles.

I have to say that I'm not satisfied with the views I've read from
people defending the status quo. It does seem to me that there's an
elite here who want to maintain the "purity" of this group, and they
seek to do that by stifling discussion of topics they consider outside
their own interests in C.

I don't think this is healthy, and I don't think this is a group I want
to devote time and energy to contributing to in these circumstances.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Jeff P. Bailey said:

As I said, in my opinion if you want to keep attacking Jacob's C skills,

I don't know where you got that idea. Why would I attack his skills? What I
attack is his errors and his unreliable assumptions.

then the onus is on you to be able to support your attacks with evidence

I do. The fact that you haven't seen such evidence merely suggests that you
haven't been here very long and haven't bothered to read the archives. So
- let me give you a few random examples, to save you the trouble of
finding one for yourself. Now please understand that I have *other stuff*
to do. I don't mind backing up my statements, but I'm not going to spend
the rest of the day pulling out dozens of examples. If you want more than
I've given here, find them yourself. They are certainly there to find.

<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

I have to say that I'm not satisfied with the views I've read from
people defending the status quo.

Then change the status quo, by posting positive articles.

I don't think this is healthy, and I don't think this is a group I want
to devote time and energy to contributing to in these circumstances.

Your choice. But if you don't like what you see and are not prepared to
work towards changing it, don't be surprised if you continue not to like
it.

 

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:
.... snip ...

I have to say that I'm not satisfied with the views I've read from
people defending the status quo. It does seem to me that there's
an elite here who want to maintain the "purity" of this group, and
they seek to do that by stifling discussion of topics they consider
outside their own interests in C.

You are wrong. The answer is extremely simple. I, personally,
like a newsgroup where people are all discussing the same thing.
The item that creates that 'same thing' is the C standard, and this
is why we consider anything that ignores it to be off-topic. The
majority here agree with me.

Yes, I do occasionally get off-topic. The reasons are many. But I
do try to control it. There are others here who simply don't make
the slightest effort.

 

[Richard]

You are wrong. The answer is extremely simple. I, personally,

It's not so simple. And no one cares about you personally - it's about
the bigger picture.

like a newsgroup where people are all discussing the same thing.

They are. C.

The item that creates that 'same thing' is the C standard, and this

Or the language C in the real world.

is why we consider anything that ignores it to be off-topic. The

Who is "we"? There is no "we". This is not your NG much as it might
surprise you.

majority here agree with me.

No they don't. A small minority have expressed an agreement with it.

Yes, I do occasionally get off-topic. The reasons are many. But I

And post with a broken signature I notice.

do try to control it. There are others here who simply don't make
the slightest effort.

Please fix your signature.

 

[jacob navia]

You are wrong. The answer is extremely simple. I, personally,
like a newsgroup where people are all discussing the same thing.
The item that creates that 'same thing' is the C standard, and this
is why we consider anything that ignores it to be off-topic. The
majority here agree with me.

The C standard is rejected by the regulars.

They prefer older versions of it, or even Turboc

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

The C standard is rejected by the regulars.

No, we're just realistic about it. Hardly anyone has implemented C99, not
even those implementors who claim to care about it (such as yourself). So
we use what we can get, and that's C89.

But C99 is still C, and is accepted as such, despite its rarity.

They prefer older versions of it, or even Turboc

I don't know what you mean by Turboc. Are you referring to Turbo C? If so,
either you're not aware that Turbo C is an implementation, not a Standard,
in which case you are parading your ignorance, or you are well aware of it
and are parading your stupidity. Which is it?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

You are wrong. The answer is extremely simple. I, personally,
like a newsgroup where people are all discussing the same thing.
The item that creates that 'same thing' is the C standard, and this
is why we consider anything that ignores it to be off-topic. The
majority here agree with me.

At the end of the day, all The Clique can ever do is fall back on this
bald assertion that the majority agree with them. There must be at least
a thousand lurkers in this group for every one that posts, and finding
out what the majority of them thinks will never be possible.

Common sense tells us that *real world use* of C is topical in a C
newsgroup.

And fix your double signature.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Who is "we"? There is no "we". This is not your NG much as it might
surprise you.

Indeed - it's Heathfield's.

Only kidding - but in the minds of The Clique, the newsgroup subsists in
themselves, and anyone who disagrees with them is an outsider and a
troll, to be driven away from their territory.

No they don't. A small minority have expressed an agreement with it.
Exactly.


And post with a broken signature I notice.


Please fix your signature.

Hear hear.

 

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 27/03/08 22:00:

The C standard is rejected by the regulars.

They prefer older versions of it, or even Turboc

Stop lying about other peoples positions. They have been explained to
you far too often for it to be an accidental misrepresentation.

 

[user923005]

jacob navia wrote, On 27/03/08 22:00:




Stop lying about other peoples positions. They have been explained to
you far too often for it to be an accidental misrepresentation.

Jacob is fond of the straw man argument. It makes it look much more
impressive to knock the stuffings out of some imaginary scarecrow than
addressing the actual issues at hand. To those not informed about
logical argument, it can even seem to be a sensible response at times
(according to the way I see people who react to his postings).

 

[Jeff P. Bailey]

Jeff P. Bailey said:


I do. The fact that you haven't seen such evidence merely suggests that you
haven't been here very long and haven't bothered to read the archives. So
- let me give you a few random examples, to save you the trouble of
finding one for yourself. Now please understand that I have *other stuff*
to do. I don't mind backing up my statements, but I'm not going to spend
the rest of the day pulling out dozens of examples. If you want more than
I've given here, find them yourself. They are certainly there to find.

OK... let's see.

<[email protected]>

jn: an implicit cast from signed to unsigned is done,
RH: There is no such thing as an implicit cast. Casts are explicit
conversions.

RH: Unsigned types don't overflow.
jn: This is nonsense.
RH: No, it isn't.

The first case is pure word games; in the second, you are obviously
arguing at cross purposes.

<[email protected]>

A discussion of whether the English word "width" is a good one to
describe specifying printf() precision. Word games!

<[email protected]>

jn: Consider int i = 38700;
RH: Why? It's not guaranteed to work. Instead, consider:
long int i = 38700;
which *is* guaranteed to work.

This is completely disingenuous on Mr Heathfield's part, given that
jacob's next lines in his original post show that the whole point of his
example is that he knows it isn't guaranteed to work:

jn: If you do not care about int size you will never know that this will
not work in 16 bit implementations, or (worst) i will be initialized to
something completely different.

<[email protected]>

More word games on whether "Technical reports" and "Standards" are the
same thing.


In summary, I find your evidence wafer thin. Only one of the examples
shows definite dishonesty on your part, but all of the others show every
sign of being a deliberate attempt on your part to misconstrue what
jacob has said for the purposes of presenting him in a negative light.

Your examples have only confirmed my belief that you have a personal
agenda to undermine him.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

(when on 27/3/2008 11:05, Richard Heathfield barfed up his usual crap)
....
....

In summary, I find your evidence wafer thin. Only one of the examples
shows definite dishonesty on your part, but all of the others show every
sign of being a deliberate attempt on your part to misconstrue what
jacob has said for the purposes of presenting him in a negative light.

I think you're beginning to see just what a lying sack of crap
Heathfield is. Good show, old man!

Your examples have only confirmed my belief that you have a personal
agenda to undermine him.

No sh*t, Sherlock?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Jeff P. Bailey said:

In summary, I find your evidence wafer thin.

In summary, I find your summary unconvincing.

Only one of the examples
shows definite dishonesty on your part,

No, none of them do.

but all of the others show every
sign of being a deliberate attempt on your part to misconstrue what
jacob has said for the purposes of presenting him in a negative light.

Rubbish. In all but one of the cited cases, IIRC, I demonstrated from the
Standard that he was wrong. The fourth, I felt so obvious that I didn't
need to cite, but I can do so if you wish.

I would much prefer my replies to present Jacob Navia in a positive light.
Unfortunately, he doesn't give me much opportunity.

Your examples have only confirmed my belief that you have a personal
agenda to undermine him.

Your reply has lent credence to the theory that you may be too ready to
jump to conclusions on insufficient data. You also seem to think that your
belief is of particular importance to me. It isn't. You believe what you
like. My own belief is that this group would be better off if Jacob Navia
learned what it's for.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Your reply has lent credence to the theory that you may be too ready to
jump to conclusions on insufficient data. You also seem to think that your
belief is of particular importance to me. It isn't. You believe what you
like. My own belief is that this group would be better off if Jacob Navia
learned what it's for.

You're a lying sack of crap...

 

[Antoninus Twink]

In summary, I find your evidence wafer thin. Only one of the examples
shows definite dishonesty on your part, but all of the others show every
sign of being a deliberate attempt on your part to misconstrue what
jacob has said for the purposes of presenting him in a negative light.

Your examples have only confirmed my belief that you have a personal
agenda to undermine him.

Heathfield plays a game in clc of trying to argue absurd points - for
example, that C doesn't have global variables. Sometimes he pushes this
too far - when he tries to claim that he doesn't have a deep-seated
personal vendetta against Jacob, that's really something noone's going
to believe for a second.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Jeff P. Bailey said:



In summary, I find your summary unconvincing.


No, none of them do.


Rubbish. In all but one of the cited cases, IIRC, I demonstrated from the
Standard that he was wrong. The fourth, I felt so obvious that I didn't
need to cite, but I can do so if you wish.

I would much prefer my replies to present Jacob Navia in a positive light.
Unfortunately, he doesn't give me much opportunity.


Your reply has lent credence to the theory that you may be too ready to
jump to conclusions on insufficient data. You also seem to think that your
belief is of particular importance to me. It isn't. You believe what you
like. My own belief is that this group would be better off if Jacob Navia
learned what it's for.

You truly are an arrogant, lying bastard.

 

[Richard]

Heathfield plays a game in clc of trying to argue absurd points - for
example, that C doesn't have global variables. Sometimes he pushes
this

Yes. What was *that* all about?