The problems in comp.lang.c

[Jeff P. Bailey]

Jeff P. Bailey said:

jacob navia said:



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.


Since it is in your commercial interest to have as few people as
possible pointing out your misunderstandings, blunders, and product
plugs, your response does not surprise me at all. It may surprise *you*,
however, to discover that I actually reply to relatively few of your
articles. (It may surprise others, too.)

This is the sort of thing I was talking about - a pointlessly negative
post.

It is, I agree, mostly negative in tone. I do not agree that it is
pointlessly so.

It is a sequence of slurs against jacob, with no obvious basis in
objective fact. It is hard for an outside observer not to conclude that
you are conducting a personal campaign against him.

Then you have not read very many of them.

I've read enough to see that jacob knows what he's talking about, has
extensive experience of C programming and a talent for explaining things
to others.

Once again: is it possible that your personal dislike of jacob makes you
read each of his posts, looking to find something to criticize?

That is very unlikely to be true. There will be at least one or two C
programmers, somewhere in the world, who are very interested in the
breeding habits of gazelles. They might even be modelling breeding
patterns in a C program, for conservation purposes. So *obviously* the
breeding habits of gazelles should be topical here. And that way madness
lies.

Many legal systems have a notion of "reasonable doubt" that isn't
precisely defined. Most reasonable people are able to decide what's
reasonable in a reasonable way.

And several thousand keypresses a day to ignore the several thousand
threads we're not interested in, and that can take an hour or more of
time. By the time clc descends to that level, it will have lost all the
people that make it worth reading.

This seems to me to be pure exaggeration. Once again, your attitude
seems to be entirely negative: like nay-sayer who just grumbles that
"it'll never work", instead of getting on with it and potentially
benefitting C programmers with useful information and advice - whether
about standard C, or about the landscape in which C sits.

Nevertheless, it seems to keep the off-topic posts to a manageable level.

Again, negative: who cares if we lose good stuff, as long as we exclude
the "bad"?

 

[Nick Keighley]

jacob navia wrote, On 23/03/08 20:44:

Nice to know that SW I spend a lot of time working on does not exist.
There are still a lot of programs that are not threaded even though they
are running on systems that support threading.

I too write and maintain unthreaded programs.


<snip>

 

[Richard]

I too write and maintain unthreaded programs.

And this is important to those of who write multi threaded applications
how? I know of people who do not write any C at all. Should this group
be disbanded because of them?

This is another example of this group closing ranks in a ridiculous
display of "me toos".

Hint : even in multithreaded apps, huge sections are NOT necessarily
reentrant. So we all write "single threaded" code too.

However, and especially as time moves on and CPUS get more cores etc,
threading is important especially in relation to Linux which is used on
huge amounts of embedded systems as well as desktops and super computers.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

FD> IMHO it is not a good idea to "fight" for such kinds of
FD> things. Some say this Group is about the Standard-Cs but I've
FD> read also that there does not exist a carta. So how about
FD> relaxing a bit and give chance to both sides?

FD> How about tagging questions?

If the question is off-topic here and better asked elsewhere, tagging
it does not change that.

FD> If it's gcc question maybe something like [gcc] in the subject
FD> would be an idea.

If it's a gcc question, the best place to ask it is in the gcc
newsgroup, not here. [gcc] in the subject line will not magically
summon gcc experts from the gcc newsgroup.

FD> I guess a lot of people don't realize that a Standard exists,

And if they lurked here and read even a day's worth of posts before
asking a question -- standard netiquette used to call for a week of
lurking! -- then they'd quickly be cured of that ignorance.

FD> But let me ask you this where should one discuss things like
FD> libapr http://apr.apache.org/ (It's not Standard C, it's not
FD> OS specific, it rans on so many different platforms, and can
FD> show how one can encapsulate OS specific things in a common
FD> API which is "C")

On Apache mailing lists set up for that purpose.

FD> What about other portable libraries like libpcre? libnspr? etc
FD> etc.

In the fora that the projects developing those portable libraries set
up for that purpose.

FD> Let me ask another way. I have some C library and I have
FD> question about it what should be the order on where to look?

The project homepage -- see if it has any mailing lists or private
newsgroups set up.

The vendor that provided you with the library may support it.

Failing that, contact the author.

FD> Well those how now would start on the homepage, then looking
FD> for some mailing lists or other kind of information
FD> sources. Now he/she does not get an answer. So the next would
FD> be some newsgroup. The library happens to run under Linux and
FD> Windows should he/she crosspost? Should one post top
FD> comp.lang.misc (although we're talking about a C library?)

No, he/she should not, unless it is topical here.

FD> Another urgent problem we do face is multi-threading. C has
FD> not idea about threads, but sill all the libraries are using
FD> some C. Where if not here should this things be discussed?

In the appropriate forum for the compiler, operating system, standard (such as
POSIX), or library being discussed.

Charlton

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Jeff P. Bailey said:

It is a sequence of slurs against jacob, with no obvious basis in
objective fact.

If you'd been here a bit longer, you'd know the basis in objective fact. If
you're prepared to put the work in, you will find many examples of Mr
Navia's articles that demonstrate this.

It is hard for an outside observer not to conclude that
you are conducting a personal campaign against him.

Then do the research, and become an inside observer.

I've read enough to see that jacob knows what he's talking about,

Then you have not read enough to see that he often doesn't. Not always, of
course - but often.

Once again: is it possible that your personal dislike of jacob makes you
read each of his posts, looking to find something to criticize?

It isn't intrinsically impossible, of course (to answer you literally), but
it is not in fact the case. If you don't count the trolls and the
spammers, I try to read every article posted in comp.lang.c (not that I
always manage it). If I see something that's obviously - or even
non-obviously - wrong that nobody else has pointed out, I will generally
post a reply. The fact that many of my replies seem to be directed to
Jacob Navia's articles merely reflects the number of times that I spot an
error in something he's written. Occasionally, I see him write something
that I actually agree with - which is always pleasant, when it happens,
which isn't often.

Many legal systems have a notion of "reasonable doubt" that isn't
precisely defined. Most reasonable people are able to decide what's
reasonable in a reasonable way.

(a) comp.lang.c isn't a legal system in that sense;
(a) to some extent I agree with you - for example, about four or five
months ago I suggested, in a nice shiny new thread, that we extend the
topicality of this group. Most people who responded rejected the idea. Is
it reasonable to ignore their wishes?

This seems to me to be pure exaggeration.

At the moment, it is - and it is my fervent desire that it remains so. I
don't want the C content of clc to be buried under thousands of irrelevant
articles.

Once again, your attitude
seems to be entirely negative: like nay-sayer who just grumbles that
"it'll never work", instead of getting on with it and potentially
benefitting C programmers with useful information and advice - whether
about standard C, or about the landscape in which C sits.

I am content with my record of providing useful information and advice
about C to readers of this group. Are you content with yours? Instead of
complaining about this group, why not work to make it better, by posting
useful information and advice about C? My attitude may seem negative to
you, but your attitude seems destructive to me. If you think there isn't
enough useful information posted here about C, post some!

Again, negative: who cares if we lose good stuff, as long as we exclude
the "bad"?

Where do you look for gold? If you have astounding patience, you look for
it in the ground amidst all the muck, or in the riverbeds. But if you just
want some gold and you want it *now*, you go to the jeweller, where you
are entitled to expect that most of the mud has been cleaned off for you.

 

[santosh]

Yes it is.
We're currently in the undesireable situation of having a rejected
standard,

IMHO, that's too strong, unless your definition of "rejected" means "not
implemented everywhere." A lot of compilers have implemented varying
subsets of C99, while a few claim full conformance. Of course there are
bound to be implementations for embedded or historical systems that may
scarcely be conformant to C90, let alone C99, but that wouldn't affect
a whole lot of other developers.

So C99's status will have different meanings to different C developers.
To a programmer coding for some tiny little microcontroller it is
effectively non-existent. To a programmer under Solaris it is very much
alive and used. Systems like Linux and Windows are probably midway: a
subset of C99 is regularly used and supported by their native
compilers.

C99, which means that "standard C" is no longer the precise
thing it once was. That doesn't mean it is impossible to hold a
coherent discussion. I don't think we can legitimately hold C99 to be
off-topic, but we should point out that non-block top declarations are
not, de facto, portable.

They are however, one of the most widely implemented extensions.

 

[santosh]

If you've only got one processor you need to schedule your tasks
somehow. One way is a "yield" statement - and you can implement this
system in stnadard C, admittedly with a bit of a kludge. The other way
is timeslicing, which is what OSes like Windows do.

Yes, and you can do both effectively with reference to POSIX. There is
an argument to be made that they are not needed in C, since a well
known and well implemented standard does cover them. Even Microsoft
reluctantly has implemented POSIX completely.

Maybe I should add threads to BASICdraw. At the momeent it is a
single-threaded app so the controls go grey as the BASIC program
executes.

Now this *is* off-topic, I'm sure even jacob would agree.

 

[santosh]

[ ... ]

Methinks you wouldn't be given grief if you know your post to be OT,
and say that "I know this is OT, but I seek answers for yada yada. I'd
appreciate if you could answer me anyway or tell me where I can find
the same".

If no really suitable groups exist for the question concerned *and* it
is reasonably related to C, then it should be okay to post to this
group along the lines you outline above.

[ ... ]

To be fair, c.l.c++ and a.c.l.l.c-c++ do tend to give more latitude
w.r.t topicality of posts.

[ ... ]

To a large extent, this has to do with C++'s language being orders of
magnitude more complex than C, and a lack of widespread availability
of implementations that conform to a standard that was released more
than a decade ago. C90 has neither of these characteristics.

Actually I suspect that more C++ implementations conform more closely to
the 1998 C++ standard than C implementations do to the 1999 C standard.

<snip>

 

[santosh]

Flash Gordon wrote:

I don't think there is an equivalent in C.

GLib? APR?

<snip>

 

[Flash Gordon]

Malcolm McLean wrote, On 24/03/08 09:44:

Yes it is.
We're currently in the undesireable situation of having a rejected
standard, C99, which means that "standard C" is no longer the precise
thing it once was. That doesn't mean it is impossible to hold a coherent
discussion. I don't think we can legitimately hold C99 to be off-topic,
but we should point out that non-block top declarations are not, de
facto, portable.

I agree with Malcolm's position on this. I did start writing a rather
longer post, then I realised there was no point in reiterating
everything Malcolm said.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Richard wrote, On 24/03/08 13:51:

And this is important to those of who write multi threaded applications
how?

It isn't. It is, however, relevant to the claim that "There are no
single threaded C programs any..." which is still quoted above.

I've already stated in comp.std.c that I would like it if threading was
added to the C standard and if it was then it would be topical here.

However, and especially as time moves on and CPUS get more cores etc,
threading is important especially in relation to Linux which is used on
huge amounts of embedded systems as well as desktops and super computers.

Others use multiple processes rather than multiple threads. Some use
fibres. It varies.

 

[Keith Thompson]

IMHO it is not a good idea to "fight" for such kinds of things. Some
say this Group is about the Standard-Cs but I've read also that there
does not exist a carta. So how about relaxing a bit and give chance to
both sides?

How about tagging questions?

If it's gcc question maybe something like [gcc] in the subject would
be an idea.

I don't believe your idea would work.

[...]

comp.std.c (which for me suggests much more discussion of "Standard C
or C related to standards or the like)

No, comp.std.c discusses the C standard document, including the
process by which it's created and proposals for changes in the next
version, as opposed to discussing the language defined by that
document.

comp.lang.c.moderated (is another group)

Which has essentially the same subject matter as comp.lang.c; the only
difference is that it's moderated.

We have groups about system specific things and the like.

But let me ask you this where should one discuss things like
libapr http://apr.apache.org/ (It's not Standard C, it's not OS
specific, it rans on so many different platforms, and can show how one
can encapsulate OS specific things in a common API which is "C")

I believe there are mailing lists that discuss it. Not everything
must have a newsgroup where it can be discussed.

Discussions of how apr demonstrates ways to use C effectively would, I
think, be welcome here. Discussions of how to use apr (what should I
pass as the third parameter?) should, I think, take place in a
different forum. If there's enough demand for a newsgroup that would
discuss apr, I don't think there would be any obstacle to creating
one.

What about other portable libraries like libpcre? libnspr? etc etc.

See above.

[...]

What would be the problem if we see a post here with

Subject: [libfoo] usage question

Everyone not liking anything beyone Standard C could ignore this
message. Other may decide to answer.

I don't believe it would be possible to impose such a convention in an
unmoderated group.

[...]

Another urgent problem we do face is multi-threading. C has not idea
about threads, but sill all the libraries are using some C. Where if
not here should this things be discussed?

comp.programming.threads, of course.

[...]

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

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

First, the group is not censored. Second, I agree, let's get rid of any
such concept.

My dog barks a lot when strange dogs walk by the yard - can anyone help?

My gardenias aren't taking well to the acidic soil here; anyone have
suggestions?

My Windows system bluescreens every time I try to open the task manager,
any ideas how to fix it?


Yes, well, we *could* go there, or we could do something intelligent,
such as, oh, focus on issues pertaining to C. Apparently you're
advocating the former. Not surprising.

 

[Flash Gordon]

santosh wrote, On 24/03/08 15:34:

Flash Gordon wrote:



GLib? APR?

Neither are being taken up the way boost is reportedly being taken up in
the C++ world, so neither is equivalent to boost in terms of its
position in the C community.

 

[Flash Gordon]

santosh wrote, On 24/03/08 15:17:

IMHO, that's too strong, unless your definition of "rejected" means "not
implemented everywhere." A lot of compilers have implemented varying
subsets of C99, while a few claim full conformance. Of course there are
bound to be implementations for embedded or historical systems that may
scarcely be conformant to C90, let alone C99, but that wouldn't affect
a whole lot of other developers.

Small embedded systems like Visual Studio you mean?

So C99's status will have different meanings to different C developers.
To a programmer coding for some tiny little microcontroller it is
effectively non-existent.

I believe this is wrong based on what has been posted here by others in
the past.

To a programmer under Solaris it is very much
alive and used. Systems like Linux and Windows are probably midway: a
subset of C99 is regularly used and supported by their native
compilers.

I think that not bothering with the bulk of C99 (Microsoft's position)
is a *very* long way from midway. Although I suppose on average you
might be correct since GNU have implemented most of it.

They are however, one of the most widely implemented extensions.

Well, I would not call C99 a set of extensions, it is after all the C
standard.

 

[lawrence.jones]

Is there some backing data for the claim that "Most C applications
today are multi-threaded" ?

The firm knowledge by most C programmers that most C appliations are
very similar to the ones they work on. I'm not sure why C programmers
are subject to such parochialism, but I've seen it over and over again:
Unix vs. MS-DOS, hosted vs. embedded, GUI vs. command line, etc. Each
side utterly convinced that their way is "obviously" dominant and unable
to comprehend how the other side could possibly disagree.

-Larry Jones

Pitiful. Just pitiful. -- Calvin

 

[santosh]

santosh wrote, On 24/03/08 15:34:

Neither are being taken up the way boost is reportedly being taken up
in the C++ world, so neither is equivalent to boost in terms of its
position in the C community.

But if c.l.c++ took the position of c.l.c on topicality Boost should be
just as OT there as APR or GLib is here. Whether that is indeed the
case, I don't know, since I don't really follow c.l.c++.

However, the point is this. One main reason for Boost's well deserved
reputation (to the extent that well known Boost extensions are usually
standardised sooner or later) is it's widespread use and acceptance by
the C++ community, even though it's not blessed by the standard.

It would be interesting to observe the reaction (if any) of the C
programming community to something similar to Boost (which GLib and APR
are, to my knowledge, not, since they are not fully portable);
unfortunately I don't really see any such package.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

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".

I'd advise you to just ask the question, and don't worry about the vocal
minority of anal-retentive aspergers sufferer's who'll flame you for
being "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.

You can read about the history on the Google Groups archive. Heathfield
has been waging a nasty campaign against Jacob for several years -
besides a complete character assassination of Jacob personally, he's
also made scurrilous accusations against his daughter, and used sock
puppets to try to get Jacob ostracized in the group. It's a pretty
disgusting history of bullying and intimidation, but that's the kind of
person Heathfield is.

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 couldn't have put it better myself. Real world C programmers are
definitely not welcome in clc.

 

[santosh]

santosh wrote, On 24/03/08 15:17:

Small embedded systems like Visual Studio you mean?

Yes, MS as usual is the odd one out.

I believe this is wrong based on what has been posted here by others
in the past.

Okay. I figured that compilers for embedded systems would be perfectly
happy with C90, but it may be that implementations for DSPs and the
like may wish to include some C99 features.

I think that not bothering with the bulk of C99 (Microsoft's position)
is a *very* long way from midway.

Yes. MS is an exception, but they are not the only implementation, even
on Windows.

My point was that though taken as a whole one might call C99
a "failure", it's precise status is very much dependant on the
programmer you ask and the extent of conformance of his preffered
compiler.

Although I suppose on average you
might be correct since GNU have implemented most of it.

A large subset of C99 is usable today on most UNIX systems and on
Windows (provided you use something other than MSVC on the latter). And
you seem to be saying that there are C99 conformant implementations for
embedded processors too.

Well, I would not call C99 a set of extensions, it is after all the C
standard.

I was talking about mixed code and declarations that Malcolm claims is
de facto non-portable.

 

[jacob navia]

Antoninus Twink wrote:
[snip]

he's
also made scurrilous accusations against his daughter, and used sock
puppets to try to get Jacob ostracized in the group.

No it wasn't Heathfield that one.

I mean Mr Heathfield insults, but not at *that* level. He is
more subtile