What is on topic here

S

spinoza1111

Sort of.  Many of those switches would be the same if you were using
the same toolset to work on, say, FORTRAN (and yes, gcc has a FORTRAN
mode) or C++.


Not really.  It's true of most existing systems, in fact, all I know of,
but it's not *required*.  If I were to implement a compiler in which
the phases of translation all occurred in memory, and the results of
the "preprocessing" phases were implemented, not actually as pure text,
but as a linked list of structures containing things which had been
turned into tokens, well, that would probably be permitted.  Indeed,
there's not strictly a requirement that I actually implement the phases
of translation *AT ALL* -- as long as you can't tell, by looking only
at the final output, that I didn't do them as described.

So that's the thing.  Standard C isn't an implementation.  It is up

Which is true, but too convenient for people who know very little
about compilers, because they've never written one. In the
bureaucratic sense the demiurge is to create an established Church out
of any real advance in human enlightenment (whether the Sermon on the
Mount or the third law of thermodynamics) lest further advance destroy
the careers of the priests. What's fascinating is this Scholastic
approach to C, which resembles the way in which the "Forty Year Old
Virgin" in the eponymous movie talks about sex:

"You know how when you grab a woman's breast... it feels like... a bag
of sand."

(The "heap" is a DOS term...it feels like a bag of sand).

"I dated this girl for a while... she was really a... nasty freak. She
just loved to... get down with... sex all the time. It was like...
anytime of day... she was like, 'Yeah, let's go! I'm so nasty!'" And
I'd be nailing her and she'd be like, 'Oh, you're nailing me! cool!'"

(The stack is not in the standard. I was in the sack with this stack,
and it screamed, "give it to me Seebie".)
 
S

spinoza1111

Which is true, but too convenient for people who know very little
about compilers, because they've never written one. In the
bureaucratic sense the demiurge is to create an established Church out
of any real advance in human enlightenment (whether the Sermon on the
Mount or the third law of thermodynamics) lest further advance destroy
the careers of the priests. What's fascinating is this Scholastic
approach to C, which resembles the way in which the "Forty Year Old
Virgin" in the eponymous movie talks about sex:

"You know how when you grab a woman's breast... it feels like... a bag
of sand."

(The "heap" is a DOS term...it feels like a bag of sand).

"I dated this girl for a while... she was really a... nasty freak. She
just loved to... get down with... sex all the time. It was like...
anytime of day... she was like, 'Yeah, let's go! I'm so nasty!'" And
I'd be nailing her and she'd be like, 'Oh, you're nailing me! cool!'"

(The stack is not in the standard. I was in the sack with this stack,
and it screamed, "give it to me Seebie".)

Indeed, fantasizing onanistically about what compilers do is a common
trope in the break room where we go around the prickly pear at four
o'clock in the morning, trying to find bugs because the client has
told us we must find ten or else (or some shit assignment like that).

This is why actual people who have written compilers find here that
the shits redefine their work as anything but, using absurd litmus
tests (when in fact to compile to interpretive language is
compilation). They live in a world that they must perforce mythologize
for their sanity, constructed by giants of old such as Brian
Kernighan.

"Actually writing a compiler" is lese-majeste although compiling
special purpose languages is an excellent way of solving real
problems. Instead, one is expected to find the local computing thug
and flatter him.


T. S. Eliot


Animula

Issues from the hand of God, the simple soul,
To a flat world of changing lights and noise,
To light, dark, dry, damp, chilly or warm,
Moving between the legs of tables and of chairs
Rising or falling,
Grasping at kisses and toys,
Advancing boldly, sudden to take alarm,
Retreating to the corner of arm and knee,
Eager to be reassured, taking pleasure
In the fragrant brilliance of the Christmas tree
Pleasure in the wind, the sunlight and the sea'
Studies the sunlit pattern on the floor.
And running stays around a silver tag:
Confounds the actual and the fanciful,
Content with playing cards and kings and queens,
What the fairies do and what the servants say.
The heavy burden of the growing soul
Perplexes and offends more, day by day,
Week by week, offends and perplexes more.
With the imperatives of "so it seems"
And may and may not, desire and control.
The pain of living and the drug of dreams
Curl up the small soul in the window seat
Behind the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Issues from the hand of time, the simple soul,
Irresolute and sefish, misshapen, lame
Unable to fare forward or retreat,
Fearing the warm reality, the offered good,
Denying the importunity of the blot,
Shadow of its own shadow, spectre of its own gloom,
Leaving disordered papers in a dusty room;
Living first in silence after the viaticum,
Pray for Guiterriez, avid of speed and power
For Boudin, blown to pieces,
For this one, who made a great fortune
And that one who went his own way.
Pray for Floret by the boorhound slain between the yew trees,
Pray for us now and at the hour of our birth.
 
S

spinoza1111

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


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.

You completely fail to understand either formal or human language,
dickhead.

Formal language shows us that the union of languages is also a
language. Your silly view is destructive because it means that most
programmers ordinarily thought of as coding in "C" program in a
nameless language, since you've destroyed the name.

This is the same form of half-educated intolerance in which the
fundamentalist Jew claims that the Reform Jew is "not a jew", the
fundamentalist Protestant says "Catholics aren't Christians", and the
Shi'ite Moslem denies that his Sunni brothers are Moslems.

The linguistics of human language show us that it is folly to say that
a language can be "defined" from on high.
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.


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.


If you look at the endlessspinoza1111threads, you'll see that their
off-topic aspects are principally originated byspinoza1111.

That is simply not the case. Most recently, I posted code which
demonstrated that C Sharp is only ten percent slower, and you and
others disrupted this thread because you just can't figure out how
someone mastered your trade and so much else besides (such as the
ability to form complete sentences of parse depth > small n). I fought
back.
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.

Navia is one of the few individuals here to be a serious coder, and
you can't stand that, since you're some sort of managerial creep.
 
F

Flash Gordon

frank said:
Jacob's got some exotic opinions about his persecutors. What I *do* see
from Richard, time and time again, are specific dates and numbers on
revisions of many standards, especially C's.

Should people refer to the C standard released some time between 1987
and 1994 instead, when they know the year it was released? Should people
avoid using the correct number if they know it, when using the correct
number means people can easily track down information about it?
Well I don't know how they're figuring on moving forward, but they've
done everything to alienate me as a customer since the early nineties.

The last time I tried to re-ignite that M$ spark, Jack Klein had
promised a free c99 M$ compiler at some link. It's bundled with 800
megs of computer pollution. Sometimes that which is "free" is incurring
costs other than monetary ones.

It's C89 not C99, and MS don't charge for it and the license is fairly
relaxed on what you can do. It is also pretty good as a C90 compiler.
That it is too big for you with all the bits it comes with is another
matter.
 
S

spinoza1111

And principally egged on by Richard Heathfield!

That is correct, if to be "egged on" is to refuse to back down when
attacked.

In an early case, I used an invariant expression in a C for loop in
2003, and Richard Heathfield, in a jealous rage since I'd created a
well-received thread on programming professionalism in 2003 (a thread
which got me invited to a panel discussion with Cass Sunstein and Mike
Godwin at Princeton University Press), enabled a cybernetic mob attack
which generalized from this single data point that I was
"incompetent".

I conceded that I'd neglected the fact that unlike, and nonorthogonal
to, other languages, the C for repeatedly evaluates the limit
condition because its "test" is an expression and not a limit value. I
mentioned that I'd not coded in C since 1992 since at that time I
found it inadequate for large systems because it could not do objects,
and I showed how the for loop was incompetently designed.

Because Richard Heathfield labors to create data points that support
his stupid ideas, he uses packrat methods, and instead of dialoging
with the people he bullies, he repeats words like "stupid" without
justification and in a manner that begs the question. This is how the
Nazis used media: Godwin's convergence in his case is justified by his
behavior, which is characteristic of the half-educated white collar
technical class that supported Hitler's election.
 
S

spinoza1111

Yes it is. The problem with overdefining "focus" is that since
concepts form a space, and space is by definition connected actually
or in principle, any partition is strictly administrative and thus
potentially oppressive in the sense that it stops thinking, and
thinking is better than following administrative rules.

For example, one of the most ground-breaking books in computer science
was entitled "The Psychology of Computer Programming". Had there been
a usenet in 1970, had Weinberg tried to air his ideas in
comp.programming (not being justified at all in putting them in
comp.lang.c, this clear lack of justification showing we can be
rational while not being overfocused), Heathfield would have told him
to get lost.

Another example was how a twerpish and narrow minded little coder at
my 1976 bachelor party, looking at my computer books, laughed at a
book...its name was "The Art of Computer Programming".

Besides, as Heathfield's disgusting behavior in this thread, telling
you to shut up, makes clear, hatred and incivility are always on topic
in this shithole.
 
P

Phil Carmody

Richard Heathfield said:
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.

No right-thinking individual has changed their attitute towards
you in a negative way from anything that Nilges has come out with.
The only change might be towards sympathy, as he's clearly a bit
of a stalker as well as a kook.

Phil
 
P

Phil Carmody

Colonel Harlan Sanders said:
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.


Thank you for being so keen to feed the troll, I'm sure he
got a real kick out of you doing precicely what he asked for.


Phil
 
N

Nick Keighley

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


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.

and the K&R de-facto standard? People do seem to come across it from
time to time. Or is that covered by C89?
 
S

spinoza1111

Thank you for being so keen to feed the troll, I'm sure he
got a real kick out of you doing precicely what he asked for.

I am not a troll. A troll is someone who posts in bad faith in order
to get a rise out of someone, and I mean what I say on all topics.
"Troll" is a nordic-racist word meant to refer to peoples pushed aside
by invaders in the Dark Ages. In modern American discourse, it
appeared in 1986 to mean homeless person, and it was used by wealthy
homeowners of Santa Cruz in a campaign to "cleanse" Santa Cruz of
homeless people. It is therefore an offensive term.

However, I do find that people are indeed addicted to making stupid
comments about my remarks and cannot resist. They have the mob's
fascination with a person who refuses to join the mob.
 
N

Nick Keighley

this is untrue.


that's because it isn't true.

Richard uses C89 as he believes it is more portable than the less
widely implemented C99. I tend agree.

OTOH Richard doesn't try and restrict anyone else from using C99. That
he does is pure invention.
Jacob's got some exotic opinions about his persecutors.
"exotic"!


 What I *do* see
from Richard, time and time again, are specific dates and numbers on
revisions of many standards, especially C's.

He often quotes the ISO (International Organisation for
Standardisation) standard identities for the 89 (actually I think its
1990 for the ISO standard- the ANSI standard was 1989) and 99
standard.

there's a sort of boot strap problem. People use C89 because it's more
portable. Hence implementors feel less pressure to implement C99.
Hence C89 is more portable...

It's 2010; if C99 hasn't taken the world by storm by now it never
will.

what's in C1x? There was little in C99 that appealed to me (bool I
think). It's unlikely adding to the pile will help. Thread support
maybe?
Well I don't know how they're figuring on moving forward, but they've
done everything to alienate me as a customer since the early nineties.

The last time I tried to re-ignite that M$ spark, Jack Klein had
promised a free c99 M$ compiler at some link.  It's bundled with 800
megs of computer pollution.  Sometimes that which is "free" is incurring
costs other than monetary ones.

I've no idea what this is about. Does Jack Klein have some influence
over MS?
 
F

Flash Gordon

Nick said:
what's in C1x? There was little in C99 that appealed to me (bool I
think). It's unlikely adding to the pile will help. Thread support
maybe?

<snip>

As a matter of fact... yes, that is one of the things they are working
on. It's also something I think a lot of C users would like, since it
can be painful doing cross-platform threaded applications at the moment.
For more information, have a look at the current drafts and documents,
and also ask over in comp.std.c
 
K

Keith Thompson

Nick Keighley said:
and the K&R de-facto standard? People do seem to come across it from
time to time. Or is that covered by C89?

No, it's not covered by C89; as you know, K&R C (i.e., the language
described by K&R1) and C89 are quite different. I've argued before
that K&R C is entirely topical here. I don't recall anyone seriously
disagreeing with that. I'm not sure why Richard left it out.
 
L

lawrence.jones

frank said:
If I had said, is "stopping after the preprocessing stage; not running
the compiler proper, whilst the preprocessed source code is sent to
stdout" something that you can do in standard C, is not the answer
emphatically, "yes?"

On the contrary, the answer is emphatically "no". In standard C, the
output of the preprocessor is a sequence of *tokens*, not text. And
although it is possible to generate C program text that closely
approximates that sequence of tokens, it is not possible to do so
perfectly in all cases. For example, given the definition:

#define A() x

the sequence:

A()y

results is the token x immediately followed by the token y with no
intervening whitespace. Representing that as text either requires
adding whitespace that should not be there:

x y

or allowing the two tokens to be conflated into one:

xy
 
F

frank

On the contrary, the answer is emphatically "no". In standard C, the
output of the preprocessor is a sequence of *tokens*, not text. And
although it is possible to generate C program text that closely
approximates that sequence of tokens, it is not possible to do so
perfectly in all cases. For example, given the definition:

#define A() x

the sequence:

A()y

results is the token x immediately followed by the token y with no
intervening whitespace. Representing that as text either requires
adding whitespace that should not be there:

x y

or allowing the two tokens to be conflated into one:

xy

Aha, is there a way to look at those tokens such that it is readable to
ordinary mortals?
 
F

frank

Phil said:
Erm, are you sure he's a German?

Phil

No. He knows it tho' and probably other languages. I thought it was an
interesting exchange because he made so much sense with his point while
Chuck used fallacy in his counterpoint.
 
F

frank

Flash said:
<snip>

As a matter of fact... yes, that is one of the things they are working
on. It's also something I think a lot of C users would like, since it
can be painful doing cross-platform threaded applications at the moment.
For more information, have a look at the current drafts and documents,
and also ask over in comp.std.c


Flash, are you involved in the gcc project?
 
F

frank

Richard said:
I can't bring to mind any current contributor (or indeed past
contributor) who has ever mentioned considering K&R C to be off-topic.
When this group was created, there weren't any ISO C standards, so (the
many-flavoured) K&R C was basically all there was. People who refer to
its topicality here generally refer to "historical reasons" - of course,
as you say, it does still crop up in here from time to time, apparently
in currently-maintained code, so it's not *just* historical reasons.

Right. In some ways it's like c.l.fortran in that occasionally people
really do have to work with something in that awful old fixed-form f77
source.

But they have a big tent philosophy, and it makes it a more interesting
place. Fortran is freely mixed with Ruby, C, and Matlab. Richard Maine
always talks about the (Fortran) standard. As the central figure in
c.l.f., however, he is always willing to talk about all those areas
where the fortran rubber hits the road, *and* no one begrudges others
when they do the same.

I'm not suggesting a blanket detente. For example, threads in C++ bore
me enough to say "down the hallway, please."
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,773
Messages
2,569,594
Members
45,119
Latest member
IrmaNorcro
Top