What is on topic here

[Charlton Wilbur]

S> FWIW, I use Objective-C, and quite like it. I am usually able to
S> distinguish between questions about C and questions about
S> Objective-C, though. (So far, I haven't found the need to hang
S> out on forums about it; it's usually pretty obvious.)

Almost all of my C-like programming nowadays is done in Objective-C or
in Perl. Which makes it not very C-like, except for hysterical raisins.

Objective-C proper has a pretty minimal learning curve. The
NeXTStep-derived libraries, GNUStep and Cocoa, have a reasonable
learning curve, but there are a few bumps in it. The vast majority of
the discussion I've seen about it seems to be newbies (and usually
different newbies each time, thankfully) first coming to grips with
retain/release memory management or with event driven programming, and
the rest tends to be about the dark and scary corners of the Cocoa API.

Charlton

 

[spinoza1111]

Is life really worth living without a daily dose of "hey, you kids!
get off my lawn!"?


It's a tough call.  The difficulty, in general, is that the issues can
vary so widely between systems that it's hard to get good advice, IMHO.

I would not expect what is true about threaded code in UNIX to be
true about threaded code in Windows.  (Well, there is one portable bit
of advice:  "BE VERY VERY CAREFUL".)

Your lack of computer science is showing. In fact, the underlying
concepts are the same. What part of "semaphores" don't you
understand?

This is a common mistake of the sort of programmer who falls into
programming by accident: to actually believe that there are mysterious
("undefined", "undefinable") differences between platforms, and to
often conclude that "my platform is better" without knowing why.

..Net (which isn't Windows, of course) has in fact a very clean
implementation of semaphores.

 

[Anand Hariharan]

Jacob's wording relating to make was "makefile problems related to the
building of a c program".  I fully support that.

Header file and source code organisation should be (is?) very much
topical, and 'make' pertaining to C is fundamentally tied to how
source files depend upon one another.

Am replying to my own post to address what Peter and Keith responded.

Idiosyncracies of textual file inclusion by the preprocessor and
forward declarations are very much topical in comp.lang.c. These are
not OS dependent, and such features are indeed present in other
languages. And these are fundamentally related to build and
dependency issues that arise in a project.

A programming language (especially a minimalist one such as C) is
seldom useful in by itself. It is useful in terms of what library
features come with it, what tool-sets facilitate working with it and
the community that uses/supports it. E.g., Perl, for all the flak it
gets for its syntax, would not be the language that it is but for all
these characteristics.

- Anand

 

[spinoza1111]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:17:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield


BTW, congratulations on not taking the bait of He Who Barks At
The Moon.  I understand the temptation, but responding to him is
worse than pointless.

I am not "he who barks at the moon". My name is Edward G. Nilges, and
I've published on computer topics since 1976 including "Build Your
Own .Net Language and Compiler" (Apress, 2004). I've worked for Bell-
Northern Research and Princeton and at the latter I was privileged to
assist John "A Beautiful Mind" Nash. However, I've left the
programming field because it was increasingly dominated by people who
engage in this kind of behavior: talking about people behind their
back...and patting themselves on the back for not "feeding the troll"
when in fact they know goddamn well they are.

How stupid can you get, Harter? I undertook not to interfere with the
above discussion and thanked Heathfield et al. for not responding to
the series of posts on Navia's original topic. I was in fact quite
relieved that they did not, because their responses would show their
usual inabilities at reading comprehension. But now you're trying to
take advantage of this by having your laffs, and you don't realize
that anyone with dignity and self-respect will respond to your shit.

This behavior is both extremely stupid (it's like "searching" for
spinoza1111 in comp.risks postings, each of which has a consistent
form and digests several articles, which wasn't only stupid but also
dishonest) and petty in the office politics register, it seems there
is a type of person who so loves the backstabbing and gossip at the
office that this ****** has to do it online for fun.

Nicholas G. Carr showed in 2003 that "IT Doesn't Matter" any more in
an article in the Harvard Business Review (http://www.nytimes.com/
2003/05/04/business/yourmoney/04TECH.html discusses his results: the
article itself must be purchased). That is, it's a pure cost center,
which must be maintained merely because all other companies "do" IT,
but there is when IT applications mature no reason for its being any
more correct or efficient than the mean, just staffed with
mediocrities guaranteed not to rock the boat and to stab each other in
the back rather than ask for meaningful work.

These Troglodytes, these homunculi, don't program anymore: what's the
point for their companies if there is no competitive advantage?
Instead they find bugs and send them on to somewhat higher, if
absurdly overspecialized, homunculi, or to India where real
programmers paid in rupees do the real work.

So, they have a lot of free time: to reminisce about C89 and to spin
fantasies about the One Great Perfect C in the Sky and the secrets of
the void, like mad monks. And to backstab and disrespect their fellow
men.

**** you, asshole.

 

[spinoza1111]

(e-mail address removed) (Richard Harter) writes:

[...]

Topicality is a fiction.  There is no consensus; it is not even
clear that the "topicality" represents a majority view.  All that
can be legitimately said is that the "topicality police" make the
most noise.

I disagree; I find that it's the self-proclaimed trolls who make the

And you, Kiki, would do well to abide by George Orwell's essay
"Politics and the English Language": "(i) Never use a metaphor,
simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in
print." You've seen phrases such as "self-proclaimed philosopher" or
"self-styled intellectual" in print and you've clumsily tried to use
it: but in the most sensible definition, "trolls" are people who post
beliefs that they don't really have in order to "get a rise": these
types of trolls won't say "I'm a troll". Nor will people like me
labeled "trolls" by thugs who can't comprehend sentences of complexity

 

[spinoza1111]

Thank you, not so much for the congratulation as for the understanding.

In other news, still no sign of a writ. Perhaps it got lost in the post.

And there you go. You said you wouldn't "feed the troll" where in your
small mind I'm a "troll" and you've done so. I wouldn't worry. The
Great Writ shall come in good time. No man knoweth the day nor hour.

 

[spinoza1111]

I think, perhaps, that I have as much reason to believe it was (or will
be) written as I have reason to believe any other claim of HWBATM.

What an asshole.

 

[spinoza1111]

better grammer would be "and I come in a week later..."

When do we start using greek letters?

When we master English orthography?

 

[Flash Gordon]

Am replying to my own post to address what Peter and Keith responded.

Idiosyncracies of textual file inclusion by the preprocessor and

Urm, we've just been discussing file inclusion in another thread, and
surprised some people by just how system specific the simple things like
which directory is looked in for a header are. What goes on with
timestamps on files (which affect make) is equally OS specific.

forward declarations are very much topical in comp.lang.c.

Forward declarations, for the only meaning of the phrase I can think og,
are nothing to do with make or other tools and entirely to do with C.

These are
not OS dependent, and such features are indeed present in other
languages.

Pascal has forward declarations.
Some Pascal variants I have used have file inclusion.
XSLT has file inclusion.
C++ has forward declarations and include files.

And these are fundamentally related to build and
dependency issues that arise in a project.

They are also not dependant on the language.

A programming language (especially a minimalist one such as C) is
seldom useful in by itself. It is useful in terms of what library
features come with it, what tool-sets facilitate working with it and
the community that uses/supports it. E.g., Perl, for all the flak it
gets for its syntax, would not be the language that it is but for all
these characteristics.

People use make for all sorts of things with the same issues of how to
construct the make file as you have with C if using a make file.

I used C on systems where I did not have a make utility and was not
permitted to install additional software. It didn't cause me any
problems when it came to using C.

 

[Anand Hariharan]

Urm, we've just been discussing file inclusion in another thread, and
surprised some people by just how system specific the simple things like
which directory is looked in for a header are. What goes on with
timestamps on files (which affect make) is equally OS specific.

And I think there should be some degree of leeway to allow discussing
them here in CLC.

Forward declarations, for the only meaning of the phrase I can think og,
are nothing to do with make or other tools and entirely to do with C.

Forward declarations is a hack to overcome cyclic dependencies.

Pascal has forward declarations.
Some Pascal variants I have used have file inclusion.
XSLT has file inclusion.
C++ has forward declarations and include files.

Am not sure if you (mis)read what I wrote. I was trying to respond to
Keith by saying just because other languages also have features
similar to C does not make them OT in CLC.

They are also not dependant on the language.

Pl see my comment about latitude above.

People use make for all sorts of things with the same issues of how to
construct the make file as you have with C if using a make file.

I used C on systems where I did not have a make utility and was not
permitted to install additional software. It didn't cause me any
problems when it came to using C.

Sure, 'make' is used for other purposes, and one can use C without
make. Please review my post couple of days ago where I was talking
about Jacob's call to include make problems /pertaining to building C/
as topical in CLC.

Am only saying CLC should consider a poster's difficulties in using an
implementation or a toolset that is used to work with C as topical.
If people come here with such problems, it is only because they don't
know better. Peter's example of make's usage is clearly not topical
here since anyone with that level of knowledge of make would know to
find better help elsewhere.

As regards to the degradation of S/N ratio, methinks it can't get much
worse. :-( Most threads that one would consider relatively 'high
signal' tend to be language minutiae concerning what is undefined.

- Anand

 

[Keith Thompson]

And I think there should be some degree of leeway to allow discussing
them here in CLC.



Forward declarations is a hack to overcome cyclic dependencies.

I'm still not at all sure what you mean. Can you give us an example?

Am not sure if you (mis)read what I wrote. I was trying to respond to
Keith by saying just because other languages also have features
similar to C does not make them OT in CLC.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise. If you were responding to me, it
must have been to something I wrote in another subthread.

[...]

Sure, 'make' is used for other purposes, and one can use C without
make. Please review my post couple of days ago where I was talking
about Jacob's call to include make problems /pertaining to building C/
as topical in CLC.

Am only saying CLC should consider a poster's difficulties in using an
implementation or a toolset that is used to work with C as topical.
If people come here with such problems, it is only because they don't
know better. Peter's example of make's usage is clearly not topical
here since anyone with that level of knowledge of make would know to
find better help elsewhere.

I have no problem with people coming here with toolset questions.
But there are generally other places where they can get better
answers, particularly when the question isn't directly related to
the C programming language. What's wrong with suggesting another
place where someone can get better answers?

 

[Anand Hariharan]

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.  If you were responding to me, it
must have been to something I wrote in another subthread.

I was responding to -

<quote>
Many of these questions could be equally applicable to languages
other than C. In my opinion, that should be an indication that
comp.lang.c is not the most effective place to ask them.
</quote>

I replied to my own post since I was responding to both Peter and you.


(...)

What's wrong with suggesting another
place where someone can get better answers?

So long as one is informed where to get that better answer, none
whatsoever.

- Anand

 

[Seebs]

Am only saying CLC should consider a poster's difficulties in using an
implementation or a toolset that is used to work with C as topical.

I think that scales badly -- we would end up with the vast majority of the
material which was considered topical to "comp.lang.c" being stuff entirely
separate from C, not particularly specific to C, and often stuff for which
there are much better answers.

If people come here with such problems, it is only because they don't
know better. Peter's example of make's usage is clearly not topical
here since anyone with that level of knowledge of make would know to
find better help elsewhere.

I think that's the point -- I think the best response is to direct people
towards the better help. They don't know better, so let's tell them, since
that's the best possible advice.

As regards to the degradation of S/N ratio, methinks it can't get much
worse. :-(

Oh, it definitely could.

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

I was responding to -

<quote>
Many of these questions could be equally applicable to languages
other than C. In my opinion, that should be an indication that
comp.lang.c is not the most effective place to ask them.
</quote>

I replied to my own post since I was responding to both Peter and you.

Ok, but that didn't refer to language features. The questions were
about how to use a "make" tool.

(...)

So long as one is informed where to get that better answer, none
whatsoever.

Agreed. So why do people (not you) keep whining about it?

 

[Seebs]

By the way, in terms of a Fool, I see Spinny as Baldrick rather than,
say, Verence II or even Magnifico.

E: Right Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans. What does
that make?
B: A very small casserole.
E: No, Baldrick, I have two beans, and I put two more beans with it.
How many beans do I have?...one...two...three......
B: OH! Three
E: WHAT?!
B: And that one.
E: Three...and THAT one?

....

R: Right Edward, I have a formalized macro replacement system, and I
add a constant-folding expression parser. What does that make?
E: A horribly outmoded and obsolete language.
R: No, Edward, I have a formalized macro replacement system, and I
put a constant-folding expression parser with it. What features does
it have? It can replace macros, it can identify expressions...
E: Oh! A cheap knock-off of Pascal!
R: WHAT?!
E: And undefined semantics for addition.
R: A cheap knock-off of Pascal... and undefined semantics for ADDITION?

Eerily plausible.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

"Edward G. Nilges" is your patronymic name; "He Who Barks At The
Moon" is your true name.  Deal with it.

You were unable to keep your committment to keep this thread, let
alone this newsgroup, free of clutter. I refuse not to defend myself,
because that's the corporate way: to take it up the ass.

Your childish name-calling has restarted this debate because I won't
be called names, having the same right I would have in a social
gathering.

You're a loser, Harter. That's why you do this.

 

[spinoza1111]

E:  Right Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans.  What does
that make?
B:  A very small casserole.
E:  No, Baldrick, I have two beans, and I put two more beans with it.
How many beans do I have?...one...two...three......
B:  OH!  Three
E:  WHAT?!
B:  And that one.
E:  Three...and THAT one?

...

R:  Right Edward, I have a formalized macro replacement system, and I
add a constant-folding expression parser.  What does that make?
E:  A horribly outmoded and obsolete language.
R:  No, Edward, I have a formalized macro replacement system, and I
put a constant-folding expression parser with it.  What features does
it have?  It can replace macros, it can identify expressions...
E:  Oh!  A cheap knock-off of Pascal!
R:  WHAT?!
E:  And undefined semantics for addition.
R:  A cheap knock-off of Pascal... and undefined semantics for ADDITION?

Eerily plausible.

That's not what happened in the discussion, Seebach. I realized it
myself and admitted the error.

You are a PSYCHOLOGY major and a script kiddie whose knowledge of
computer science is deficient: you're ignorant of basic CS concepts
("the 'heap' is a DOS term"), you paid your way onto the C standard
committee on which you "served" purely to seem an expert in a language
you do not use on the job by all indications, and based on your
ridiculous document about Schildt, you owe your position of "senior
software engineer" at Wind River Systems to backstabbing and gossiping
about people behind their back.

 

[spinoza1111]

E:  Right Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans.  What does
that make?
B:  A very small casserole.
E:  No, Baldrick, I have two beans, and I put two more beans with it.
How many beans do I have?...one...two...three......
B:  OH!  Three
E:  WHAT?!
B:  And that one.
E:  Three...and THAT one?

...

R:  Right Edward, I have a formalized macro replacement system, and I
add a constant-folding expression parser.  What does that make?
E:  A horribly outmoded and obsolete language.
R:  No, Edward, I have a formalized macro replacement system, and I
put a constant-folding expression parser with it.  What features does
it have?  It can replace macros, it can identify expressions...
E:  Oh!  A cheap knock-off of Pascal!
R:  WHAT?!
E:  And undefined semantics for addition.
R:  A cheap knock-off of Pascal... and undefined semantics for ADDITION?

Eerily plausible.

-s

We have to read this post in conjunction with your stunning level of
ignorance about computer science and lack of real qualifications, Mr.
Seebach:

1. The "heap" is NOT an MS-DOS artifact

2. Windows and unix, to be functional for multiple threads, have to
implement atomic semaphores: this was a scientific result on the order
of relational data base

3. A "language specification" does not leave significant issues
undefined in order to please vendors

4. A "senior software engineer" is not a person with a psychology
degree who writes scripts in shell languages, has never taken a class
in computer science, and who finds bugs only to send them elsewhere

5. The moderator of a moderated technical group does not approve all
posts, and questions technical and factual errors

6. A person with your claims to expertise would post code once in a
while

Given the above significant flaws in your education and
professionalism, it stands to reason that your main resource in
argumentation will be TV shows.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

troll> Your childish name-calling has restarted this debate because
troll> I won't be called names, having the same right I would have
troll> in a social gathering.

Actually, you have considerably *more* rights than you would have in a
social gathering, as if you behaved as boorishly in a social gathering
as you have here, either the host would have shown you the door or the
guests would have adjourned to a setting that did not have you in it.

In fact, anyone who makes as big an ass of himself as you have *will* be
called names, and if you don't like that, I recommend sticking your
fingers in your ears and humming until you can hear nothing else.

Charlton

 

[spinoza1111]

    troll> Your childish name-calling has restarted this debate because
    troll> I won't be called names, having the same right I would have
    troll> in a social gathering.

Actually, you have considerably *more* rights than you would have in a
social gathering, as if you behaved as boorishly in a social gathering
as you have here, either the host would have shown you the door or the
guests would have adjourned to a setting that did not have you in it.

In fact, anyone who makes as big an ass of himself as you have *will* be
called names, and if you don't like that, I recommend sticking your
fingers in your ears and humming until you can hear nothing else.

I haven't behaved boorishly: your information is second hand. You are
in other words yet another person who hasn't done his homework, and
for this reason you credit the word of the regulars here.

In this world, which has regressed to Lord of the Flies levels because
of the behavior of the regulars, "being an ass" is to be what you're
afraid to be: a target of criticism.

Letters have gone to lawyers about the behavior of people here. A
letter will go in particular to Peter Seebach's employer and his
publisher on his behavior.