The problems in comp.lang.c

[Antoninus Twink]

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

*splutter* He's got the measure of you Heathfield - being negative is
what you're all about.

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

Years of posting suggest otherwise.

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.

Interesting. You accuse Jacob's daughter of being addicted to
pornography, but you're the one suffering from a barrage of falsehoods?

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.

Linkers that link C object files to form a C executable can hardly be
considered a non-C topic. But you and your cronies still want to exclude
them from discussion here.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Confusing; Jacob regularly posts a charter here, and Richard states
that there isn't one. One interpretation of this is that there has
never been an officially agreed charter.

Another interpretation is that HeathField is a liar.

So, why don't (we) participants develop a charter, over a period of a
month, have a voting period, and declare an outcome? There will then
be little doubt, or need for constant sniping and ranting, as to what
the agreed role of this newsgroup is.

For as long as Heathfield rules this group like his personal kingdom,
back up by a pathetic array of sycophantic lackeys, any attempts at
restoring sanity will just be drowned out by the whining sound of
Heathfield and his cronies.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Agreed, disagreements will persist, but so many other corners of the
Internet and Usenet can manage a consensus about their own purpose.
c.l.c. has no extra-ordinary properties that should prevent its smoother
communication.

This is clearly false. clc is completely unlike any other Usenet group
I've ever come across, and certainly doesn't resemble any functional
society I know of.

At present a small band of people dismiss many questions
as "off topic", but can only apply their own beliefs as to what that
means, and can't point to any single statement.

Yes - all they have is loud aggression and complete hypocrisy to impose
their views by force.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

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.

My feeling, which I've expressed many times, is that the biggest "drag"
on the group is the tendency of certain regulars, like Default Loser and
CBF, to contribute absolutely nothing of value, but bitch from the
sidelines about newbies top-posting and asking supposedly off-topic
questions.

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.

"Indeed".

 

[Antoninus Twink]

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 -

It does increase his stock of Clique points, though.

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.

Agreed, though I bet CBF gives him a good run for his money in the
appearing-in-killfiles stakes.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Trivia is important with computers, because of the way that the technology
makes it cheaper to send information than to receive.

Huh? What does that reply have to do with the comment above?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Jeff P. Bailey said:

That is very unlikely to be true.

"Quite so". In clc, there are very few reasonable people.

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.

And you say Jacob is the drama queen?

 

[Default User]

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++.

It's been a subject of debate. Some people felt Boost was off-topic and
should be discussed on the mailing list, others thought that it was
very portable and should be allowed to a certain extent. The latest
version of the standard has or is about to (I'm sure where the process
is) incorporate many Boost elements as standard.





Brian

 

[Antoninus Twink]

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.

Yet another example of the mind-boggling hypocrisy of The Clique. One
rule for them, another for everyone else - it's sickening.

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.

I think this is where Heathfield's control over the group really shows
itself - many regular posters clearly use C99 themselves, but
nonetheless Heathfield has managed to strongarm them into adopting his
own crazy belief that C90 is all that's acceptable to discuss.

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.

Luckily, most readers of this group can see straight through the hidden
agenda of Heathfield, his cronies and his sock puppets, who want to
destroy Jacob's reputation, whether for antisemitic reasons or not.

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.

The alarming thing is that Heathfield only ever seems to get more
acolytes for himself as time goes by - you can really see a dictator at
work, building up his power vase.

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++)

True. It goes the other way too - people always claim that K&R C is
on-topic, but if anyone posts a K&R style function then they get shot
down in flames almost as quickly as someone using // comments.

That was YOUR viewpoint of this group.

I beg to differ!

I suspect that a silent majority of clc readers also beg to differ.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

And why do you imagine that includes multitasking? You may have to
write careful code to control the access to various portions, but
that is not hard. I did all that thirty years ago, in Pascal, on
an 8080 chip.

Of course, if a regular is posting (albeit one who's embarrassed himself
so often in this group that he's now getting the cold shoulder from his
former friends in the Clique), then 8080 chips and Pascal are suddenly
on-topic! No hypocrisy here, folks!

And fix your damn signature.

 

[Richard]

Yet another example of the mind-boggling hypocrisy of The Clique. One
rule for them, another for everyone else - it's sickening.


I think this is where Heathfield's control over the group really shows
itself - many regular posters clearly use C99 themselves, but
nonetheless Heathfield has managed to strongarm them into adopting his
own crazy belief that C90 is all that's acceptable to discuss.


Luckily, most readers of this group can see straight through the hidden
agenda of Heathfield, his cronies and his sock puppets, who want to
destroy Jacob's reputation, whether for antisemitic reasons or not.


The alarming thing is that Heathfield only ever seems to get more
acolytes for himself as time goes by - you can really see a dictator at
work, building up his power vase.


True. It goes the other way too - people always claim that K&R C is
on-topic, but if anyone posts a K&R style function then they get shot
down in flames almost as quickly as someone using // comments.


I suspect that a silent majority of clc readers also beg to differ.

The true "majority" views on the likes of Default Bwian and Heathfield are
demonstrated on how only the tiny clique back each other up. Unfortunately
Santosh has sipped from the chalice and is now, embarrassingly for all
that look on, tripping over his own feet in an effort to kiss
Heathfield's arse every time someone gets upset at his arrogant
posturing and blatant rudeness to Jacob or some other poor new
poster. The only sacing grace is that even the clique appear to have
seen through the rubbish that that bumbling fool Chuck Falconer brings
to the table. I find it amazing that someone who posts with a double
signature can lecture someone on posting standards.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

santosh said:


What about a little checking of claims? The above claims:

Bad santosh - you haven't defended your master's honor! It seems Richard
has touched a nerve, so that Heathfield felt the need to give us
lengthy self-justification, full of the usual lies and bullshit.

<lies and bullshit snipped>

 

[santosh]

santosh said:


What about a little checking of claims? The above claims:

<snip>

I think you may have misunderstood what I said.

Richard alleged that he knows of no other technical forum wherein a
small set of participants decide and enforce various rules and
guidelines for the rest. I pointed out that this is precisely what
moderators of moderated forums do, and unlike c.l.c, those moderators
*are* endowed with actual powers of censorship and rule making, unlike
the often accused c.l.c "clique."

 

[Flash Gordon]

santosh wrote, On 24/03/08 17:29:

Yes, MS as usual is the odd one out.

Like it os not it is an important one for many people.

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.

Here is the post I was thinking of
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...b/a0d96da7d2927c2b?lnk=st&q=#a0d96da7d2927c2b
Also remember that gcc is used for some embedded work.

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

I know they are not the only implementation on Windows, but they are a
major implementation on it, probably the the most major implementation
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.

My position is that a language standard that is not followed by at least
the biggest implementations in each area it overs (and MS is definitely
one of the biggest hosted implementations, along with gcc) then it has
not succeeded.

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

Well, there are good reasons why some people have to use MSVC or at
least its run-time.

you seem to be saying that there are C99 conformant implementations for
embedded processors too.

It is moving that way from what I hear.

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

Well, the example Jacob posted was actually declaring the variable in
the for statement rather than just mixed declaration, and that does have
portability issues. Note that Malcolm did not say that it is
non-standard or won't work on other C99 implementations, only that there
are portability issues.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

Interesting. You accuse Jacob's daughter of being addicted to
pornography, but you're the one suffering from a barrage of falsehoods?

Surely not. There must be some sort of misunderstanding here.

 

[Default User]

"Antoninus Twink" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[blah blab]

Surely not. There must be some sort of misunderstanding here.

Oh come on. Twink's a troll. Do you really think he misunderstands
anything? Why in the world would anyone give that idiot the least bit
of attention?




Brian

 

[user923005]

Confusing;  Jacob regularly posts a charter here, and Richard states
that there isn't one.  One interpretation of this is that there has
never been an officially agreed charter.

So, why don't (we) participants develop a charter, over a period of a
month, have a voting period, and declare an outcome?  There will then
be little doubt, or need for constant sniping and ranting, as to what
the agreed role of this newsgroup is.

Some kind sole could then post the charter once a week (yes, once a week
seems too frequent, but it's currently longer than the period between
the frequent wars on c.l.c topicality).

??

I doubt if having a charter will make much difference, especially in
an unmoderated newsgroup.

I guess that eventually the september that never ended will hit
critical mass.

Many of the really good posters have already left for good. Too bad.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

"Antoninus Twink" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[blah blab]

Surely not. There must be some sort of misunderstanding here.

Oh come on. Twink's a troll. Do you really think he misunderstands
anything? Why in the world would anyone give that idiot the least bit
of attention?

For the same reason you are.

Note that truthtellers are not always liked, but they are usually
listened to/paid attention to.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

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

Yes, as subtle as a sledgehammer

Who was it then? Mackintyre? I'm sure I remember one of the HeathField
sock puppets coming out with it.

 

[user923005]

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.

Literally everything I do is threaded. But I would not think to ask
questions about it here (where such questions are not only off-topic
but would waste a great deal of time and gather incorrect answers).
We use ACE (which has its own newsgroup) and pthreads (which is
topical in and system specific
solutions which would be far more on target in newsgroups with those
particular foci.

Some people want to talk about how to draw graphics with the Borland
Graphics Interface. Hey, that's using C. Some people want to send
TCP/IP messages. Some people want to access database files. Those
questions would be perfectly fine here if there were not already a
BETTER place to ask them. I'd talk about florists and butchers, but
the new crowd is definitely too thick to get it. Seriously.