What is on topic here

[jacob navia]

This group is about building C progreams
and the C language in general.

This includes (but is not limited to)

o linking problems
o debugging problems
o makefile problems related to the building of a c program
o compiling and compiler related questions

Most of the people that argue otherwise and want to restrict
the scope of this group are part of a small self proclaimed
group that thinks it can restrict the scope of this group
to C89.

If you look at their recent posting history you will see that
they are the principal originators of completely off topic
conversations here (the endless spinoza111 threads are a proof
of that).

To avoid clutter I will not answer any of their answers, if any.

jacob

 

[Seebs]

This group is about building C progreams
and the C language in general.

What is your source for this claim, or authority to make it?

You, and other people, make claims about what this group is about.
Why should someone believe your claims over the other claims that
have been advanced?

-s

 

[Ian Collins]

If you look at the endless spinoza1111 threads, you'll see that their
off-topic aspects are principally originated by spinoza1111.

And principally egged on by Richard Heathfield!

 

[Seebs]

Actually, spinoza111 tends to be the principal originator of most of the
spinoza111. Having said that, Seebs and Richard Heathfield are his
facilitators -- more than happy to continually goad, taunt and mock him,
even though they *must* know by now that he cannot have his opinions
changed by them.

Actually, once I figured out that he was essentially incapable of processing
data in a functional way, I plonked him and stopped responding. That woulda
been weeks ago, I think.

So I don't think I count as a facilitator now. I tried to argue with him
for a while, tried to plumb the madness for a while in the hopes that it
would at least yield interesting ways of being wrong about C, and then
concluded that the marginal cost of getting an interesting observation from
arguing with him was too high to justify it.

-s

 

[Nick]

If you were subjected to the same level of vilification by this guy as
I am, perhaps you might respond as I have responded in the past. But
recently I've backed off from responding to these attacks. Did you
notice that, or were you too busy nurturing your preconceptions?

I did notice it, and I'm very grateful; thank you.

 

[Seebs]

I'm very glad, and I withdraw that remark unconditionally.
I didn't notice, because spinny's threads stopped appearing in my
newsreader some time ago.

I think Richard Heathfield has also cut back quite a bit. He's posted an
occasional response, but honestly, most of the recent ones I've noticed
were cases where Mr. Heathfield was making a relevant, possibly interesting,
point.

There is some topicality to some of Spinoza's rants. I would guess that
many readers could have learned something from the detailed discussion of
how the C preprocessor works, when constant folding does and doesn't happen,
and so on. (To be fair, I'd have assumed most people would have known it,
but there are certainly newbies here, and I believe it theoretically
possible that some of them know less about C than Spinny.)

-s

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Perhaps it should be, but it currently isn't.

You are wrong. It currently is. Look back through the threads from the
past few months: you'll find that however much you and your friends
stamp up and down and shout about it, there has been *plenty* of active
discussion, with participants from well outside the circle of those you
call "trolls", about the wider context of C.

You think of clc as a platonic ideal. Try looking as it as it actually
is today.

I would say it's currently about the C language in particular. And
there are only two internationally recognised definitions of C - ISO
9899:1990 and ISO 9899:1999.

As has been said before, the name of this group suggests that it is
about /all/ versions of C, not just ISO C. De facto, it's "currently
about" a wide variety of C issues, because it's a simple fact that there
are currently lots of active threads about a wide variety of C issues.

That's a view, but I think you'll find it's not a majority view. If
you're arguing that topicality should be widened, well, I agree
(although we don't necessarily agree about the direction of that
widening) - but the majority view is against us. Or at least, it was,
last time anyone bothered to check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selecting_sample ...

....and on two levels:

1) lots of people who would enjoy reading and perhaps contributing to
clc if it was more relevant to real-world programming will have been
driven away from the group years ago by the aggressive behavior of the
"topicality" police.

2) of those who are interested in wider C questions and still read the
group, why would they want to take part in an obviously rigged and
meaningless survey conducted by the not-exactly-impartial Heathfield? I
know I didn't. Must better to make the topicality relaxation a fait
accompli by just getting on and answering real-world C questions.

No, most of the people who argue otherwise are the majority of
contributors to the group. In a democracy, they win and we lose.
That's life.

clc is not a democracy. You may wish that you were president and that
Kiki and Sossman were your loyal senators, but it simply isn't so. There
is no government here - each person stands on what he or she posts.

The only way to control a Usenet group is through moderation. This group
is unmoderated.

If you look at the endless spinoza1111 threads, you'll see that their
off-topic aspects are principally originated by spinoza1111.

Are you arguing that as long as someone else struck the match, it's
perfectly fine to throw gasoline onto the flames? Interesting.

Can you also avoid clutter by shutting up about lcc-win32? This is a
newsgroup about C, not a personal blog for your compiler. If you want a
personal blog for your compiler, your Web site would be a good bet.
Failing that, try comp.compilers.lcc.

Glad you managed to get that nasty little paragraph of abuse in,
Heathfield. It would be a shame if you missed an opportunity to put the
boot in to Jacob - otherwise we might forget what a vile little weasel
you really are.

 

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia wrote: [...]

Most of the people that argue otherwise and want to restrict
the scope of this group are part of a small self proclaimed
group that thinks it can restrict the scope of this group
to C89.

No, most of the people who argue otherwise are the majority of
contributors to the group. In a democracy, they win and we
lose. That's life.

I've heard that Heathfield wants to bring back C89, but I've never
read it myself in here. Maybe I'm missing these threads. Keith has
talked about them. The closest I can come to the motivation for this
allegation is that he compiles with -ansi (ten years ago).

That's irrelevant to the point. I don't think anyone seriously
disputes that both C89/C90 and C99 are topical. It's also generally
accepted that K&R C is topical, as are even earlier versions, mostly
for historical interest. We've even had discussions of B and BCPL,
the ancestors of C.

[...]

Back in late September of 2007, Richard Heathfield started a thread
with the subject "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?".
Richard himself favored doing so, but the majority of those who
participated in the discussion expressed the opinion that the
topicality guidelines should remain as they are (i.e., as advocated by
the "regulars"). Richard posted a summary of the discussion
on 2007-10-02, subject "Topicality discussion - summary".

Google Groups URLs:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/306800faf6c30d43/a642808d3bf37773
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/32c4358dc0307344/faa1895ecbce478b

It's interesting to note that many of those who complain most loudly
about the topicality guidelines being too strict were participating in
the newsgroup at the time, but did not choose to participate in the
discussion.

 

[Ian Collins]

If you were subjected to the same level of vilification by this guy as I
am, perhaps you might respond as I have responded in the past. But
recently I've backed off from responding to these attacks. Did you
notice that, or were you too busy nurturing your preconceptions?

I kill-filed him long ago, so I don't see his rants. Unfortunately my
preconceptions have wilted, I forgot to water them.

 

[Keith Thompson]

This group is about building C progreams
and the C language in general.

This includes (but is not limited to)

o linking problems
o debugging problems
o makefile problems related to the building of a c program
o compiling and compiler related questions

Most of the people that argue otherwise and want to restrict
the scope of this group are part of a small self proclaimed
group that thinks it can restrict the scope of this group
to C89.

I disagree, as I've said at length in the past.

If you look at their recent posting history you will see that
they are the principal originators of completely off topic
conversations here (the endless spinoza111 threads are a proof
of that).

To avoid clutter I will not answer any of their answers, if any.

At least two regular posters have participated in pointless debates
with spinoza1111, but have stopped doing so, or at least substantially
reduced their participation. You might want to give them credit for
improved behavior rather than refusing to talk to them.

 

[frank]

jacob navia wrote: [...]
Most of the people that argue otherwise and want to restrict
the scope of this group are part of a small self proclaimed
group that thinks it can restrict the scope of this group
to C89.
No, most of the people who argue otherwise are the majority of
contributors to the group. In a democracy, they win and we
lose. That's life.

I've heard that Heathfield wants to bring back C89, but I've never
read it myself in here. Maybe I'm missing these threads. Keith has
talked about them. The closest I can come to the motivation for this
allegation is that he compiles with -ansi (ten years ago).

That's irrelevant to the point. I don't think anyone seriously
disputes that both C89/C90 and C99 are topical. It's also generally
accepted that K&R C is topical, as are even earlier versions, mostly
for historical interest. We've even had discussions of B and BCPL,
the ancestors of C.

[...]

Back in late September of 2007, Richard Heathfield started a thread
with the subject "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?".
Richard himself favored doing so, but the majority of those who
participated in the discussion expressed the opinion that the
topicality guidelines should remain as they are (i.e., as advocated by
the "regulars"). Richard posted a summary of the discussion
on 2007-10-02, subject "Topicality discussion - summary".

Google Groups URLs:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/306800faf6c30d43/a642808d3bf37773
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/32c4358dc0307344/faa1895ecbce478b

It's interesting to note that many of those who complain most loudly
about the topicality guidelines being too strict were participating in
the newsgroup at the time, but did not choose to participate in the
discussion.

That was an interesting gander into the past, Keith. I took a look at
the names, and I know all of them. It didn't seem like a very large
array in my head. Matter of fact, it seemed like a small one.

Let me quote of one of the better usenet netizens I've ever encountered:

27. Peter J. Holzer
View profile
More options Sep 30 2007, 10:18 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:18:25 +0200
Local: Sun, Sep 30 2007 10:18 am
Subject: Re: Should we broaden the topicality of this group?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?

Where did I write anything about recommending code? The statement you
were responding to was (as you can still read above):

I see nothing wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific
dialect.

hp

For germans, hanging on to even high german is ridiculous.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Back in late September of 2007, Richard Heathfield started a thread
with the subject "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?".

[snip nonsense]

It's interesting to note that many of those who complain most loudly
about the topicality guidelines being too strict were participating in
the newsgroup at the time, but did not choose to participate in the
discussion.

Did you miss my post elsewhere in the thread, Keith? It debunks your
ridiculous lies.

<quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selecting_sample ...

....and on two levels:

1) lots of people who would enjoy reading and perhaps contributing to
clc if it was more relevant to real-world programming will have been
driven away from the group years ago by the aggressive behavior of the
"topicality" police.

2) of those who are interested in wider C questions and still read the
group, why would they want to take part in an obviously rigged and
meaningless survey conducted by the not-exactly-impartial Heathfield? I
know I didn't. Must better to make the topicality relaxation a fait
accompli by just getting on and answering real-world C questions.
</quote>

 

[Flash Gordon]

I've heard that Heathfield wants to bring back C89, but I've never read
it myself in here. Maybe I'm missing these threads. Keith has talked
about them. The closest I can come to the motivation for this
allegation is that he compiles with -ansi (ten years ago).

The reason you don't remember Richard Heathfield (or any one) trying to
restrict the group to C89 is that no one has tried to do that. It is
Jacob miss-representing what other people have said, which is that there
are still very few C99 implementations, so C89/C90/C95 is more portable,
and it is useful for people to know when they are restricting portability.

A lot of companies use MS VCC for compiling C code, and that does not
implement C99, so earlier (theoretically obsolete) versions of the C
standard are still very important. I'm hoping that the new stuff being
put in to C1x will be enough to kick MS in to moving forward and
implementing the current standard, which would probably push other
companies in to supporting it.

 

[john]

Back in late September of 2007, Richard Heathfield started a thread
with the subject "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?".

[snip nonsense]

It's interesting to note that many of those who complain most loudly
about the topicality guidelines being too strict were participating in
the newsgroup at the time, but did not choose to participate in the
discussion.

Did you miss my post elsewhere in the thread, Keith? It debunks your
ridiculous lies.

<quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selecting_sample ...

...and on two levels:

1) lots of people who would enjoy reading and perhaps contributing to
clc if it was more relevant to real-world programming will have been
driven away from the group years ago by the aggressive behavior of the
"topicality" police.

2) of those who are interested in wider C questions and still read the
group, why would they want to take part in an obviously rigged and
meaningless survey conducted by the not-exactly-impartial Heathfield? I
know I didn't. Must better to make the topicality relaxation a fait
accompli by just getting on and answering real-world C questions.
</quote>

AT: I think I remember reading a post from Keith saying that he had you
killfiled, so that could explain why he missed your post.

I wish you'd BOTH stop this ad hominem personal bickering and spend more
time sharing your undoubted C expertise! And Jacob Navia and Rich
Heathfield too for that matter.

j.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Actually, spinoza111 tends to be the principal originator of most of the
spinoza111. Having said that, Seebs and Richard Heathfield are his
facilitators -- more than happy to continually goad, taunt and mock him,
even though they *must* know by now that he cannot have his opinions
changed by them.

Point out one thread started by Mr. Nilges.

Thank you.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

AT: I think I remember reading a post from Keith saying that he had you
killfiled, so that could explain why he missed your post.

Keith doesn't have a killfile.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I wish you'd BOTH stop this ad hominem personal bickering and spend more
time sharing your undoubted C expertise! And Jacob Navia and Rich
Heathfield too for that matter.[/QUOTE]

As I've demonstrated many times, there is nothing topical here to
discuss - it simply doesn't exist - if (and assuming) that the word
"topical" is interpreted the way most people do. That is as synonymous
with "appropriate". I think it is clear in our hearts and minds that
"appropriate" is what we really mean when we say "topical".

Thus, it is not possible to discuss anything topical here other than:
1) topicality itself (which is what we all discuss, all the time)
2) language lawyering (which appeals only to fools)

Finally, note that the topicality police have changed their tune lately
(I've observed this previously, starting, I think, about 6 months to a
year ago) from one of "You are wrong (in a moral/religious sense) to
post that here" to "I won't help you if you post it here". But the net
effect is the same; the change is only superficial, and should fool no
one.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Keith doesn't have a killfile.

I believe he has described in the past as a "mental killfile".

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

Point out one thread started by Mr. Nilges.

Thank you.

From: spinoza1111 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: C as deep blasphemy
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:56:54 -0800 (PST)

From: spinoza1111 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Comparision of C Sharp and C performance
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:36:54 -0800 (PST)

From: spinoza1111 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: C is NOT significantly more efficient than C Sharp
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 02:50:15 -0800 (PST)

From: spinoza1111 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Peter Seebach's behavior as "moderator" of comp.lang.C
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:04:15 -0800 (PST)

From: spinoza1111 <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.programming
Subject: Richard Heathfield's lie
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)

etc, etc...

Of course, the last time someone claimed they couldn't find his posts,
he threatened them with libel.

 

[Richard Tobin]

This group is about building C progreams
and the C language in general.

[/QUOTE]

What is your source for this claim, or authority to make it?

The same as everyone else's, of course.

You, and other people, make claims about what this group is about.
Why should someone believe your claims over the other claims that
have been advanced?

No reason. But I don't recall you making similar comments in response
to assertions that comp.lang.c is for discussions of standardised C
only. Should only those with that view assert it?

Comp.lang.c is for discussion of the C language, including common
implementations and related tools (especially those on unix, where it
originated).

-- Richard