The problems in comp.lang.c

[Kenny McCormack]

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.

Yes. Jacob himself confirmed it in one of his posts. I thought (though
I could be wrong about this) that *he* attributed it to Heathfield.

Though, as you say, it really doesn't matter. Him or a sock puppet.
Same thing.

 

[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

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.

Yes. Jacob himself confirmed it in one of his posts. I thought (though
I could be wrong about this) that *he* attributed it to Heathfield.

Though, as you say, it really doesn't matter. Him or a sock puppet.
Same thing.

It was a guy called "old wolf", that later apologized for that.

I think that he just didn't grasp what he was writing.

Then McIntyre accused *me* of being rude with him because I complained.

But let's forget that please. It is not pretty...

 

[jacob navia]

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.

Great.

But... did you know?

o There are quite a few parallel extensions to C.
o There are several packages that implement threads in C, together
with special syntax.

o Thraeds or not thraeds? Wouldn't arrays, a naturally parallel data
structure be better than making threads and threads? Is the thread
model scalable?

Beyond your straw man, we could discuss *issues* that pertain to
language development. Because if you can't implement it in your
language of choice, many models just do not get used. There were a lot
of "parallel languages" around, and still there are. But they do not
catch into the mainstream.

That could mean that we could see how parallel concepts fit into the
language.

Now get out of your straw man and let's analyze the real issues.

This group is becoming a BORE. Why?

Because by narrowly focusing in questions like:


ON TOPIC QUESTION
------------------------
Hi guys

I wrote
i = i++ - --i;

and it doesn't work...
------------------------

Why can't we discuss the things that are related to C but not in
the standard?

Just try to answer without straw mans, and getting into the arguments of
the other side

Thanks

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Malcolm McLean said:

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

It looks more like a lie to me. What did you expect from a troll? If he's
telling the truth, he'll be able to produce a message ID that proves his
claim, right? But he can't do that, because he isn't telling the truth.

The thread title is "The problems in comp.lang.c" - and you replied to one
of them.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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.

Principle A: when someone resorts to silly analogies, they've conceded
the argument.

There *is* a difference here.

P.S. Besides which, all of the above *are* things that the regulars
regularly discuss, and, as has been noted, since they are regulars, no
one complains.

 

[CBFalconer]

Anand Hariharan wrote:
.... snip ...


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

That probably reflects the greater availability of 1998 C++
compatible compilers than the availability of 1999 C compilers.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip much troll snarling ...

But let's forget that please. It is not pretty...

Good for you. You have spent about six messages total discussing
this with those prime trolls, Twink and McCormack. Thus causing
the whole thing to be forgotten.

 

[CBFalconer]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
.... snip ...


Great. But... did you know?

o There are quite a few parallel extensions to C.
o There are several packages that implement threads in C,
together with special syntax.

You fail to realize that these things are perfectly topical,
PROVIDED you include the standard C code to implement them. Then
there are no unknown crevices to absorb the blame.

If that code is too long to publish here, it obviously needs work
to make it shorter and more easily understandable

 

[Anand Hariharan]

Anand Hariharan wrote:
[ ... ]

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.

What I wrote (the part you have quoted above), I was referring to
C90, not C99. I have never paid serious attention to anything
introduced in C99.

- Anand

 

[Anand Hariharan]

Anand Hariharan wrote, On 24/03/08 06:57:

Most people here would see nothing wrong with that question because it
is a question about whether the code is correct or not rather than about
the implementations. In fact, we recently had a post of this sort and
people did not complain about it being off-topic.

Unless it is something very trivial (like misplaced closing parens),
I would be very interested in seeing an example of C code that
generated very different diagnostics from different compilers.
Could you point me out to such a thread?

Well, that is not language specific.

Could you clarify what you mean by /that/?

Could I discuss how to package my code to facilitate a particular
license in c.l.c?

- Anand

 

[user923005]

Unless it is something very trivial (like misplaced closing parens),
I would be very interested in seeing an example of C code that
generated very different diagnostics from different compilers.
Could you point me out to such a thread?

Consider an instance where one compiler allows an extension and
another does not (e.g. using a nameless union or having a list of
intializers where the last entry has a comma after it).

Could you clarify what you mean by /that/?

A program that computes numerical integration in python verses a
program written that computes numerical integration in C will not have
different language details if they both use the same license.

Could I discuss how to package my code to facilitate a particular
license in c.l.c?

Your questions were not answered by this site:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/
?

Did you try ?

 

[Anand Hariharan]

A program that computes numerical integration in python verses a

^^^^^^
ITYM /versus/ (unless they've started writing poetry a la Perl).

program written that computes numerical integration in C will not
have different language details if they both use the same license.

Eh? They will differ, at the very least, by the "language detail".
One is implemented in Python, and the other is implemented in C.

Your questions were not answered by this site:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ ?

Did you try news:gnu.misc.discuss ?

Who said anything about my having questions? I was discussing what
is considered topical in c.l.c vis-a-vis its sister groups.

- Anand

 

[Richard]

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. My methods and codes are not applicable in c.l.c.

No one really cares. Slightly more people are writing Pascal on an 8080
now (e.g maybe 1 or two). Fewer people knew of multitasking in a reliable
form in a "high level low level" language like C 30 years ago. As usual
you only post to put people down.

 

[Richard]

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>

A while ago I revisited this group from many years ago when I had been
more active on C projects. I witnessed such a feeding frenzy I had to
take a walk and wonder what the hell had happened to "help groups".

It wasn't so much the **** of the walk's attitude which annoyed me
directly, but more the willingness with which the clique ignored the
ramblings of the likes of Falconer *because* he always stuck up for
them. In many ways I wonder if they hung him out to dry to be the "fall
guy" for all that is ludicrous in this NG.

 

[Richard]

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?

Try asking in a windows NG - this clearly is not the usual behaviour and
I can only assume you broke something.

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.

But if the BSOD was caused by a type error in a C thread that would be a
little more on topic I would think?

 

[user923005]

                                                          ^^^^^^
ITYM /versus/ (unless they've started writing poetry a la Perl).


Eh?  They will differ, at the very least, by the "language detail".
One is implemented in Python, and the other is implemented in C.

Right. I meant that the license details would not differ. IOW, the
license has nothing whatsoever to do with the programming language of
the tool.

Who said anything about my having questions?  I was discussing what
is considered topical in c.l.c vis-a-vis its sister groups.

Discussion of topicality is always topical in any newsgroup. Topical
in is discussions on the C language.
If there is no newsgroup that is more focused on the question at hand,
then would be a good place to discuss the question.
If (however) the question was about a GNU license, then the gnu groups
would be the logical place for such discussions. You could probably
ask generic license questions in but these
questions always erupt into flame wars (IMO).

 

[William Pursell]

There
are no single threaded C programs any more since quite a long time
under any OS like Macintosh, linux, or windows.

That is utterly absurd. Multi-threaded programs are popular,
but to claim that no one writes any single-threaded programs
is phenomenally naive.

 

[William Pursell]

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".

None of which substantiates the original claim that "all new
programs are multi-threaded". There is a perfectly reasonable
perspective that any program that is multi-threaded should
be written in a language other than C. To allow the claim
to stand without any objection is to suppress perfectly
viable perspectives and narrow the horizons of the programmer
who is never exposed to them. So to answer your first question:
it is important to the person who writes multi-threaded
programs because it informs them that many (possibly most)
programs currently being developed in C are in fact
single threaded.

As to the 'ridiculous display of "me toos"', I responded
to Jacob's original post before I saw anyone else's response,
and I'm glad to see more people with enough sense to call him
on his ridiculous claim. I'm not optimistic that I will
see a retraction from him at any point in the near future,
though, and instead expect a barrage of insults and claims
of abuse, most of which I'll probably ignore, because
unfortunately, although jacob does make some valid
contributions to the group, it strikes me that the
larger percentage of his posts are utter nonsense and
I don't bother spending very much time reading him.

 

[Morris Dovey]

Fewer people knew of multitasking in a reliable
form in a "high level low level" language like C 30 years ago. As usual
you only post to put people down.

Fewer than how many? Are you thinking that businesses were
spending big bucks on IBM, CDC, Burroughs, DG, RCA, Univac,
systems so they could run a single task at a time? Or are you
thinking that languages like PL/S were figments of their users'
imaginations?

You would do yourself a favor by getting your facts straight
before you throw 'em at other people. It appears to me that you
waste a lot of effort on churlish put downs that do more damage
to yourself than your target.

Iowa political wisdom: "He who throws mud loses ground."

 

[Friedrich Dominicus]

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

Hm, I mentioned mailing lists, but I can not see why the should not be
of "broader" interest and this group would fit for that IMHO.

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

Hm, the OP uses [someTag] on reply on usually gets the subject for
free so the reply would also be tagged if not changed willingly by the
replier. It's very non-obtrusive IMHO.

comp.programming.threads, of course.

standardization suggestions? should then be taken to comp.c.xxx?

and not in the broader group here?

Regards
Friedrich