Is Chris Hills a troll?
Antoninus Twink
Twice in the past couple of days, Default Loser has accused Chris Hills,
member of the ISO C committee, of being a troll (though given that the
former's only "contributions" to this group are "don't top post" and
"plonk" posts, perhaps his opinions shouldn't be given *too* much
weight...)
But Jack Klein, too, has said the same thing in ever-so-slightly more
guarded language. And Heathfield has been hinting at it too in recent
weeks.
So has it really come to this? Is this really the growing consensus of
the regulars?
If so, perhaps they should do a little soul-searching and ask who the
real trolls are. And what the hell their little game is really all
about.
user923005
> Or, just how low has this group sunk?
>
> Twice in the past couple of days, Default Loser has accused Chris Hills,
> member of the ISO C committee, of being a troll (though given that the
> former's only "contributions" to this group are "don't top post" and
> "plonk" posts, perhaps his opinions shouldn't be given *too* much
> weight...)
>
> But Jack Klein, too, has said the same thing in ever-so-slightly more
> guarded language. And Heathfield has been hinting at it too in recent
> weeks.
>
> So has it really come to this? Is this really the growing consensus of
> the regulars?
I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
read almost everything he posts.
> If so, perhaps they should do a little soul-searching and ask who the
> real trolls are. And what the hell their little game is really all
> about.
You're a troll.
IMO-YMMV.
Charlton Wilbur
AT> Or, just how low has this group sunk? Twice in the past
AT> couple of days, Default Loser has accused Chris Hills, member
AT> of the ISO C committee, of being a troll (though given that
AT> the former's only "contributions" to this group are "don't top
AT> post" and "plonk" posts, perhaps his opinions shouldn't be
AT> given *too* much weight...)
AT> But Jack Klein, too, has said the same thing in
AT> ever-so-slightly more guarded language. And Heathfield has
AT> been hinting at it too in recent weeks.
AT> So has it really come to this? Is this really the growing
AT> consensus of the regulars?
Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
comments.
Chris Hills also frequently argues contrary points, most of the time
for the sake of being contrary, and says things he knows are
provocative and will elicit a certain response.
In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
does the latter, he's a troll.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Keith Thompson
>>>>>> "AT" == Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
> AT> Or, just how low has this group sunk? Twice in the past
>
> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
> comments.
Antoninus Twink certainly is a troll. I suggest not feeding him.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks...@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Kenneth Brody
>
> >>>>> "AT" == Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> AT> So has it really come to this? Is this really the growing
> AT> consensus of the regulars?
>
> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
> comments.
>
> Chris Hills also frequently argues contrary points, most of the time
> for the sake of being contrary, and says things he knows are
> provocative and will elicit a certain response.
>
> In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
> does the latter, he's a troll.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "provocative" and "a certain
response".
For example, in a recent thread about "x = x++;" (again) it was
pointed out (again) that this is UB. Chris Hill's response was the
single word "Why?"
Now, you could look at this two ways (assuming that this is, in fact,
the "real" Chris Hill [please, let's not get into _that_ thread {the
one about what makes on the "real" Chris Hill <so, how many nested
levels of subtopics can I go (I think I've reached it, as I've run
out of possible characters [I see now why LISP just uses parens for
everything]) before overflowing?>} again]):
1 - He's trolling "for real".
2 - His response was really a "provocative" way of saying "but
you haven't told the OP 'why' it's UB".
I would like to think that a member of the ISO C committee would fall
into the latter. Perhaps it's his way of teaching you how to teach
others how to fish?
Of course, I may be completely wrong.
--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:ThisIsA...@gmail.com>
Richard Tobin
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
>does the latter, he's a troll.
Alternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't mean we
*are* stupid. Similarly just because someone sometimes trolls does't
mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is someone who habitually trolls.
-- Richard
--
:wq
Kaz Kylheku
> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
> comments.
Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.
If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
come from an impersonator.
Charlton Wilbur
RT> In article <877ii8b...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
RT> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>> In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
>> he does the latter, he's a troll.
RT> Alternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't
RT> mean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
RT> sometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
RT> someone who habitually trolls.
Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be looking
for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his positive
contributions outweigh his negative ones.
Ben Pfaff
> On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
>> comments.
>
> Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
> claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.
Sometimes I ask questions to which I know the answers. It is a
teaching tool.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Charlton Wilbur
KK> On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net>
KK> wrote:
>> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
>> comments.
KK> Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which
KK> someone claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is
KK> undefined.
KK> If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to
KK> have come from an impersonator.
Or he was in troll mode and asking intentionally stupid questions to
provoke people, or he was asking for clarification so that the querent
who originally asked about x = x++ would understand the principle that
determines that it's undefined (and thus, with luck, not posting a
followup question about x++ * x++).
It's insufficient to conclude from a question that the querent does
not know the answer.
Richard Heathfield
I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
explaining why. Chris could have been clearer about this. Nevertheless,
I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Randy Howard
(in article <CqudnUETyasBABLa...@bt.com>):
> Kaz Kylheku said:
>
>> On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
>>> comments.
>>
>> Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
>> claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.
>>
>> If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
>> come from an impersonator.
>
> I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
> occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
> fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
> explaining why. Chris could have been clearer about this. Nevertheless,
> I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.
Now that perhaps half a dozen people have attempted to /guess/ what he
meant, perhaps we can just allow Chris to respond himself instead of
everyone trying to read his mind.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Default User
> I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
> interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
> read almost everything he posts.
It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
annoy the regulars. Others disagree.
That being said, I certainly don't want to provide fuel for no-doubt
trolls like Twink. I don't believe for a minute he's unhappy, in fact
is delighted to have more trolling material. So, while I won't retract
anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from mentioning it in the
future, nor will I discuss it further in the abstract. I think that's
about as fair as I can be.
Brian
Chris Hills
<kenb...@spamcop.net> writes
Precisely.
Simply stating UB or "not proper C" with no explanation is the sort
arrogance you only come across in people who delight in proving
themselves superior to the poor person asking such a stupid question
without actually helping anyone.
I get pissed off with some here who will like take a program apart line
by line saying "not proper C" to UB without being in the slighted help
to anyone other than their own ego and belief that they are the only one
who is technically right .
More to the point anyone with any intelligence can see what the program
is trying to do but they *choose* not to.
In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).
You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
correct prototype is probably: int main (void)
Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
been a perfectly legal free-standing program.
You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.
>I would like to think that a member of the ISO C committee would fall
>into the latter.
You would like to thinks so but anyone can join the C panels. There
are the odd (?) one or two who just like to pick up details to prove how
clever they are without actuarially doing anything constructive.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris Hills
<ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
I just respond in kind to some of the obtuse posts that we see that may
be technically correct but actually of little help to anyone apart from
the ego of the poster.
Chris Hills
<6be657b1-f774-4e8b...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Kaz
Kylheku <kkyl...@gmail.com> writes
Not at all. The post was x=x++ is undefined without explaining why to
someone who was clearly a novice.
If people want to post that sort of "undefined" remark they will get the
reply "why"
Kenny McCormack
We should be so lucky.
Now, remind me, just which year was it in which Default Loser last
posted something technical/non-political in CLC? 2004, maybe?
Kenny McCormack
Kenny McCormack
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <fmo162$2i4e$2...@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
><ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>In article <877ii8b...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
>>Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that he
>>>does the latter, he's a troll.
>>
>>Alternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't mean we
>>*are* stupid. Similarly just because someone sometimes trolls does't
>>mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is someone who habitually trolls.
>>
>>-- Richard
>
>I just respond in kind to some of the obtuse posts that we see that may
>be technically correct but actually of little help to anyone apart from
>the ego of the poster.
And that's your problem. That's what puts you out of step with The Clique.
Kenny McCormack
Kenny McCormack
Chris Hills
Exactly. In this case simply stating "undefined" to a novice who
probably does not have the standard or , by the sound of it, a decent
text book is not going to be any use.
It does not make the person who says "undefined" but fails to be helpful
look anything other than an egotistical prat. Being right is not a
virtue of itself most of the time,.
Chris Hills
<cwi...@chromatico.net> writes
>>>>>> "KK" == Kaz Kylheku <kkyl...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> KK> On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net>
> KK> wrote:
>
> >> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
> >> comments.
>
> KK> Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which
> KK> someone claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is
> KK> undefined.
>
> KK> If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to
> KK> have come from an impersonator.
>
>Or he was in troll mode and asking intentionally stupid questions to
>provoke people,
Partly I get pissed off with unhelpful people who give technically
correct answers that help no one other than feed their ego at being so
clever.
> or he was asking for clarification so that the querent
>who originally asked about x = x++ would understand the principle that
>determines that it's undefined (and thus, with luck, not posting a
>followup question about x++ * x++).
Yes. Exactly. Also those who were o so clever in spotting all the
"undefined behaviour" did not actually provide much help to the OP
Chris Hills
<r...@see.sig.invalid> writes
>Kaz Kylheku said:
>
>> On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
>>> comments.
>>
>> Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
>> claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.
>>
>> If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
>> come from an impersonator.
>
>I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
>occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
>fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
>explaining why
Yes, exactly
>. Chris could have been clearer about this.
Why? Jacks tone and manner were appalling for an adult.
> Nevertheless,
>I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.
Are we agreeing again? This has to stop :-)
Chris Hills
Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:28:46 -0600, Richard Heathfield wrote
>(in article <CqudnUETyasBABLa...@bt.com>):
>
>> Kaz Kylheku said:
>>
>>> On Jan 17, 7:15 am, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
>>>> comments.
>>>
>>> Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
>>> claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.
>>>
>>> If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to have
>>> come from an impersonator.
>>
>> I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on this
>> occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was pointing up the
>> fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour was undefined without
>> explaining why. Chris could have been clearer about this. Nevertheless,
>> I've done the same myself on occasion, and for the same reason.
>
>Now that perhaps half a dozen people have attempted to /guess/ what he
>meant, perhaps we can just allow Chris to respond himself instead of
>everyone trying to read his mind.
Sorry I wasn't using my mind today :-)
BTW I have email problems on the mail machines so I owe James an email
for his explanation of the US voting system... (now that is bizarre!
Walter Roberson
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I get pissed off with some here who will like take a program apart line
>by line saying "not proper C" to UB without being in the slighted help
>to anyone other than their own ego and belief that they are the only one
>who is technically right .
>More to the point anyone with any intelligence can see what the program
>is trying to do but they *choose* not to.
>In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
>program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).
>You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
>correct prototype is probably: int main (void)
The thread in question did not ask about how to write a correct
program to do some particular task: the thread in question asked
what the output was of a very specific program. Pointing out how
the program *could* have been written to avoid problems was not
particularily relevant to answering the poster's assignment for them.
>Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
>been a perfectly legal free-standing program.
If it had been a free-standing program, then because free-standing
programs are not required to support stdio, the printf() could have
been a call to some function with unknown behaviour: free-standing
programs are not required to have their I/O routines conform to
what the C standard says those routines are supposed to do for
hosted environments. Therefor my answer at the time, that the
program could output just about anything, was correct for free-standing
programs as well.
--
"All is vanity." -- Ecclesiastes
Richard
Good. It's not just me then. I thought he was joking when I read his
self serving nonsense. Just who does he think he is? Chris Hills posts a
lot of help and useful information. This Brian joker is just a lower
brow Heathfield wannabe.
Richard
> user923005 wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think Chris Hill is a troll. He's intelligent, and
>> interesting. He is "contrary" a lot, but I don't mind that a bit. I
>> read almost everything he posts.
>
>
> It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
> the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
> annoy the regulars. Others disagree.
No one cares about your views. Your contribution to this group is
nothing but "me toos" and "off topic" rejoinders.
>
> That being said, I certainly don't want to provide fuel for no-doubt
> trolls like Twink. I don't believe for a minute he's unhappy, in fact
> is delighted to have more trolling material. So, while I won't retract
> anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from mentioning it in the
> future, nor will I discuss it further in the abstract. I think that's
> about as fair as I can be.
Nobody cares. Really.
Richard
Is Charlton a nym for Heathfield? It sounds like it.
james...@verizon.net
...
> BTW I have email problems on the mail machines so I owe James an email
> for his explanation of the US voting system... (now that is bizarre!
Agreed! I'll look forward to your message when you get your e-mail
working again.
Kenny McCormack
Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Default Loser" <default...@yahoo.com> writes:
...
>> It's my belief that Mr. Hills is unhappy with the topicality "rules" of
>> the majority here, and undertakes periodic attempts to harrass and
>> annoy the regulars. Others disagree.
>
>No one cares about your views. Your contribution to this group is
>nothing but "me toos" and "off topic" rejoinders.
Surely you mis-underestimate [sic] him. He also does top posting alerts.
Kenny McCormack
Chris Hills
<5ec61169-7e60-4dc0...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
james...@verizon.net writes
I can receive email and send/ receive news but not send email
Fortunately it is on the personal/spam-trap PC not the main business
email
Antoninus Twink
> So, while I won't retract anything about Mr. Hills, I'll refrain from
> mentioning it in the future, nor will I discuss it further in the
> abstract. I think that's about as fair as I can be.
How gracious of you!
Above all, don't bring forward any, you know, actual evidence to support
your deranged theories.
Antoninus Twink
And from time to time he makes bitter complaints that some people he
hasn't "plonked" actually dare to discuss C with Jacob, thereby forcing
him to see Jacob's words that offend his hypersensitive nature so
terribly, poor soul.
Antoninus Twink
> For example, in a recent thread about "x = x++;" (again) it was
> pointed out (again) that this is UB. Chris Hill's response was the
> single word "Why?"
>
> Now, you could look at this two ways (assuming that this is, in fact,
> the "real" Chris Hill [please, let's not get into _that_ thread {the
> one about what makes on the "real" Chris Hill <so, how many nested
> levels of subtopics can I go (I think I've reached it, as I've run
> out of possible characters [I see now why LISP just uses parens for
> everything]) before overflowing?>} again]):
>
> 1 - He's trolling "for real".
>
> 2 - His response was really a "provocative" way of saying "but
> you haven't told the OP 'why' it's UB".
>
> others how to fish?
Like, gee, I mean, do you reckon??
The people here seem to have lost their humanity and turned into
compilers themselves - they find a syntax error on line 10 of a post and
can't interpret it as any well-adjusted person would, but stop
processing and spew out a diagnostic message, usually an abrasive and
unhelpful one at that.
Antoninus Twink
I don't think so. Charlton's been posting for ages, and so far
Heathfield's sock-puppeting modus operandi has been to use a number of
throwaway identites that slander Jacob for a few days and then
disappear.
I'm afraid we must face the truth that the world contains more people
like Heathfield than we'd like to hope.
jacob navia
Yes. I apologize...
:-)
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Kenny McCormack
Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
...
>I don't think so. Charlton's been posting for ages, and so far
>Heathfield's sock-puppeting modus operandi has been to use a number of
>throwaway identites that slander Jacob for a few days and then
>disappear.
Yes. I guess you are right.
>I'm afraid we must face the truth that the world contains more people
>like Heathfield than we'd like to hope.
Now, that's a scary thought!
Antoninus Twink
As Heathfield might say, "indeed!"
Richard
Veritably so. Indeed.
Keith Thompson
never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has managed to
start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles long (including
this one).
We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks...@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Richard Heathfield
> This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
> never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has managed to
> start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles long (including
> this one).
>
> We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls.
If the volume of positive contributions to the group is the criterion, I
can think of a few others you could ignore too, since they don't make any
positive contributions at all. Specifically, "Kenny McCormack" and
"Richard Riley" (who, it appears, can't even remember his own surname long
enough to put it in his From field, let alone make a positive contribution
to this group).
> Just
> imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
> one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.
I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Antoninus Twink
> This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
> never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,
Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.
Of course, criticizing one of The Clique immediately made me a troll...
even more so when it became clear to me that you're never allowed to
make positive contributions to this group if you're interested in
real-world C, so that a necessary first step before making positive
contributions is to point out the stupidity and hypocrisy of the
regulars and try to change the climate here. Of course, this is again
trolling by the standard definition (i.e. a troll is someone who
disagrees with one's own views).
> has managed to
> start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles long (including
> this one).
Sometimes trolls can say the things that other people are thinking. Or
should be thinking, if they weren't complete inured to common sense by
years spent posting here. The insightfulness of a particular post does
not depend on the posting history of the poster.
The shocking thing about this thread is how few messages of 100%-support
for Chris Hills there have been. This group really does seem to be
heading off into outer space, and it's so far out already that earth's
gravitational pull is now very weak indeed.
> We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
> imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
> one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.
Imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if people didn't
post so many snarling messages saying "that's not C!", "not portable!",
"take it to another newsgroup!", "can't discuss that here!", "don't top
post!", "snip sigs!", "ding ding - post by Jacob, which bit of it can we
attack?", yada yada yada, on and on for ever.
Every time you check this group you have to wade through this thick
sludge of useless "go away" messages. As my old grandmother used to say,
if you can't say something useful, don't say anything at all.
Philip Potter
> On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
>> never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,
>
> Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
> algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
> suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.
That's not how I remember that thread. You replaced an O(n) algorithm
with an O(n) algorithm, and claimed you were fixing a "Bug/Gross
InEfficiency" (sic). Neither claim was true.
*plonk*
(and while I'm at it, I might unplonk Kenny McCormack, because unlike
Antonius and Richard, I find him somewhat entertaining sometimes...)
Nick Keighley
> On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
> > never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,
do you believe you've made any recent positive contributions?
> Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
> algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
> suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.
>
> Of course, criticizing one of The Clique immediately made me a troll...
> even more so when it became clear to me that you're never allowed to
> make positive contributions to this group if you're interested in
> real-world C, so that a necessary first step before making positive
> contributions is to point out the stupidity and hypocrisy of the
> regulars and try to change the climate here. Of course, this is again
> trolling by the standard definition (i.e. a troll is someone who
> disagrees with one's own views).
I think you're going to have an uphill struggle to change the climate.
Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
Discussing extensions (so called "real-world C") is off topic.
Now are you posting to change the climate? Good luck.
Or just to amuse yourself and those (few) who think you're funny?
Because *that* makes you a troll.
<snip>
> Every time you check this group you have to wade through this thick
> sludge of useless "go away" messages. As my old grandmother used to say,
> if you can't say something useful, don't say anything at all.
have you considered taking you grandmother's advice?
--
Nick Keighley (Richard Heathfield build 3142)
Richard
> On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
>> imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
>> one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.
>
> Every time you check this group you have to wade through this thick
> sludge of useless "go away" messages. As my old grandmother used to say,
> if you can't say something useful, don't say anything at all.
That would be my main objection to this group. You couldn't make up
people like Keighley and Falconer. It's almost like they take delight in
being objectionable and basically unpleasant and "elite". I am a member
of various programming groups and forums and this is BY FAR the rudest
group I have ever come across. Unfortunately a few posters have decided
to model themselves on Heathfield's obfuscating manner - even adopting
his flowery, pseudo intellectual prose style.
Only on this group would recommending a good debugger be met with
pompous ridicule. I suspect that most of the more irritating poseurs
here have never written a line of code in a large team on legacy systems
in their lives.
Richard
Nobody cares who is in your kill file. You are a prime example of the
kind of poster to whom AT is referring. Grow up, take it on the chin and
move on.
Kenny McCormack
>Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge has
>>> never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup,
>>
>> Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
>> algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
>> suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.
>
>That's not how I remember that thread. You replaced an O(n) algorithm
>with an O(n) algorithm, and claimed you were fixing a "Bug/Gross
>InEfficiency" (sic). Neither claim was true.
I assume you're lying. Because that's what all Clique members and
wannabee members do, all the time.
Q: How do you know when a Clique member is lying?
A: You see their name in the "From" line.
>(and while I'm at it, I might unplonk Kenny McCormack, because unlike
>Antonius and Richard, I find him somewhat entertaining sometimes...)
Well, thank you [*]. I do seem to hit the right notes, most of the time,
don't I? I do think that my esteemed colleague (Mr. Twink) is (almost)
as gifted, though.
[*] Coming from a Clique wannabee, I do realize that this is as far as
you can go in public, w/o risking the wrath of the Clique. But I know
what you really would say, if you could.
Kenny McCormack
Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Only on this group would recommending a good debugger be met with
>pompous ridicule. I suspect that most of the more irritating poseurs
>here have never written a line of code in a large team on legacy systems
>in their lives.
>
So true. So true.
Though, actually, my sense of a lot of them is that they may have,
decades ago, been real world programmers. Now, all they do in their
sad, pathetic lives is hang out here, in a sad pathetic corner of
Usenet, and try to convince us all how smart they used to be.
Chris Hills
>Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 18 Jan 2008 at 1:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
>>> imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every time
>>> one of the trolls posted something, there were no response at all.
>>
>> Every time you check this group you have to wade through this thick
>> sludge of useless "go away" messages. As my old grandmother used to say,
>> if you can't say something useful, don't say anything at all.
>
>That would be my main objection to this group. You couldn't make up
>people like Keighley and Falconer. It's almost like they take delight in
>being objectionable and basically unpleasant and "elite".
They scare off any new blood so when they hold a poll of where c.l.c
should go they are the only ones left to vote. It is self perpetuating
untill it dies.
>I am a member
>of various programming groups and forums and this is BY FAR the rudest
>group I have ever come across.
Absolutely. Actually that is because most of the reasonable people have
left. Therefore where they might get lost in an NG that is popular they
stand out here.
> Unfortunately a few posters have decided
>to model themselves on Heathfield's obfuscating manner - even adopting
>his flowery, pseudo intellectual prose style.
Pedantry that whilst being technically accurate actually is no help at
all to anyone bar their own egos.
>Only on this group would recommending a good debugger be met with
>pompous ridicule. I suspect that most of the more irritating poseurs
>here have never written a line of code in a large team on legacy systems
>in their lives.
You get that feeling.
The C they want to discuss is not actually used in reality. We would
all benefit from a short discussion on how ot do something that is not
portable in C as you would know why and get some idea of how people
solve the problems on other platforms. They can then go to the specific
NG for trhe in depth discussion of that platform specific technique but
the constant "not standard C" when they see void main () and them claim
the whole source is undefined and therefor OT for this NG is stupidity
beyond belie. You wouldn't last long in a team with that attitude.
Richard
> The C they want to discuss is not actually used in reality. We would
> all benefit from a short discussion on how ot do something that is not
> portable in C as you would know why and get some idea of how people
> solve the problems on other platforms. They can then go to the
> specific NG for trhe in depth discussion of that platform specific
> technique but the constant "not standard C" when they see void main
> () and them claim the whole source is undefined and therefor OT for
> this NG is stupidity beyond belie. You wouldn't last long in a team
> with that attitude.
Yes. By FAR the worst is this pedantic pointing out of missing headers
ad-infinitum and then stating that the entire code is undefined. I
suspect that a couple of the "regs" have been stung by my replies to
there rudeness and have therefore decided not to tangle
anymore. Killfiles are generally the resort of the weak. They are on the
look out for nOObs to fry. You are right about another thing, of the
core clique here not ONE would have lasted on any team I, and I suspect
most experienced project managers, managed. They would be out on their
ear in no time.
Constructive criticism that is applicable to the desired quality, budget
and timescale of a particular project is always welcome. Pedantic time
wasting and preaching is not.
CBFalconer
> Kaz Kylheku said:
>> Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, and often makes useful
>>> comments.
>>
>> Really? In another thread, I just read a posting in which someone
>> claiming to be Chris Hills asked why x = x++ is undefined.
>>
>> If Chris Hills knows a great deal about C, that would have to
>> have come from an impersonator.
>
> I rarely have occasion to disagree with you, but I think that on
> this occasion the most likely explanation is that Chris was
> pointing up the fact that Jack had merely said that the behaviour
> was undefined without explaining why. Chris could have been
> clearer about this. Nevertheless, I've done the same myself on
> occasion, and for the same reason.
As have I. The usual result is a smelly wet rag thrown over the
whole discussion.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CBFalconer
>
> This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge
> has never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has
> managed to start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles
> long (including this one).
>
> We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
> imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every
> time one of the trolls posted something, there were no response
> at all.
Don't look at me. I just counted 37 kills in my killfile, not even
including thread kills.
CBFalconer
> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>>> In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
>>> he does the latter, he's a troll.
>
>> mean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
>
> Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be
> looking for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his
> positive contributions outweigh his negative ones.
Interestingly, in the roughly 7 hours since you posted the above,
the only responses have been 7 messages from the known trollers
McCormack, Richard, and Twink.
Antoninus Twink
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>> This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge
>> has never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has
>> managed to start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles
>> long (including this one).
>>
>> We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
>> imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every
>> time one of the trolls posted something, there were no response
>> at all.
>
> Don't look at me. I just counted 37 kills in my killfile, not even
> including thread kills.
It always amazes me how many people believe that the contents of their
killfile will be a matter of universal fascination.
Amusingly in this case, CBOldFart's claim is shown to be a lie by a post
he made himself only minutes apart from the one above:
> Interestingly, in the roughly 7 hours since you posted the above, the
> only responses have been 7 messages from the known trollers McCormack,
> Richard, and Twink.
I wonder how he knows that, if we're really all in his killfile...
Antoninus Twink
> In article <fmppsr$3pg$1...@aioe.org>, Philip Potter <p...@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>>(and while I'm at it, I might unplonk Kenny McCormack, because unlike
>>Antonius and Richard, I find him somewhat entertaining sometimes...)
>
> Well, thank you [*]. I do seem to hit the right notes, most of the
> time, don't I? I do think that my esteemed colleague (Mr. Twink) is
> (almost) as gifted, though.
Lucky old you, Kenny! I'm really cut to the quick that I've been
rejected by an oily, up-start Heathfield wannabe, whose drooling
adoration for his hero drips from every word he writes.
I think we're to The Clique what satirists are to politicians - we'd be
more easily dismissed if only there wasn't an awkwardly inescapable
serious point underlying our attempts to deflate the pompous, point out
hypocrisy and promote common sense.
Default User
> If the volume of positive contributions to the group is the
> criterion, I can think of a few others you could ignore too, since
> they don't make any positive contributions at all. Specifically,
> "Kenny McCormack" and "Richard Riley" (who, it appears, can't even
> remember his own surname long enough to put it in his From field, let
> alone make a positive contribution to this group).
I certainly agree with that, as all of those are in my killfile, along
with Twink.
Brian
Kenny McCormack
Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
...
>> Don't look at me. I just counted 37 kills in my killfile, not even
>> including thread kills.
>
>It always amazes me how many people believe that the contents of their
>killfile will be a matter of universal fascination.
More than anything, it shows them to be of a non-technical bent.
They have so much more in common with religious leaders, (tele-)
evangelists, and most of the current crop of US presidential candidates,
than they do with real IS/IT people (which is the group they claim to
come from).
>Amusingly in this case, CBOldFart's claim is shown to be a lie by a post
>he made himself only minutes apart from the one above:
Of course it is a lie. Did you expect otherwise???
Charles Richmond
>>>>>> "RT" == Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>
> RT> In article <877ii8b...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
>
> >> In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
> >> he does the latter, he's a troll.
>
> RT> mean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
> RT> sometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
> RT> someone who habitually trolls.
>
> Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be looking
> for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his positive
> contributions outweigh his negative ones.
>
"Stupid is as stupid does." -- Forrest Gump ;-)
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Randy Howard
(in article
<4052d4c1-21bd-4a3b...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>):
> Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
> But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan Pop's
incredibly polite responses.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
CBFalconer
> Nick Keighley wrote
>
>> Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
>> But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
>
> They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
> Pop's incredibly polite responses.
Ahh yes. He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. :-) Does
anyone know where he went?
Kaz Kylheku
> Randy Howard wrote:
> > Nick Keighley wrote
>
> >> Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
> >> But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
>
> > They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
> > Pop's incredibly polite responses.
>
> Ahh yes. He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
> always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. :-) Does
> anyone know where he went?
But then there was also ultra-polite Tanmoy Bhattacharya.
Ah, quite googleable, he, I see.
Richard Heathfield
> Randy Howard wrote:
>> Nick Keighley wrote
>>
>>> Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
>>> But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
>>
>> They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
>> Pop's incredibly polite responses.
>
> Ahh yes. He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
> always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. :-) Does
> anyone know where he went?
Perhaps he has just Popped out for a moment. I suppose he'll return when
he's hunted down and shot the guy who managed to break into his lead-lined
steel-reinforced safely-use-gets() room.
Army1987
> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
>> algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
>> suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.
>
> That's not how I remember that thread. You replaced an O(n) algorithm
> with an O(n) algorithm, and claimed you were fixing a "Bug/Gross
> InEfficiency" (sic). Neither claim was true.
By that reasoning, the statement
while (*dest++ = *source++)
;
is no improvement over
while (tanhl(*source)) {
volatile uintmax_t i = -1, foo = -1;
while (i--)
if (atanl(i - *source))
foo ^= i;
*dest = foo;
dest++, source++;
}
as they both do the same thing in O(n) time...
(More seriously, probably Antoninus' code had a smaller constant [1], but
it was *really* ugly, so I would prefer spending some hundred nanoseconds
more than coding like that.)
[1] It depends on how strcpy is implemented. In cases when string.h
functions are inlined, something like char *dot_to_underscore(const char
*s) {
size_t len = strlen(s);
char *new = malloc(len + 1);
if (new != NULL) {
char *p = mempcy(new, s, len + 1), *end = new + len;
while ((p = memchr(p, '.', end - p)) != NULL)
*p++ = '_';
}
return new;
}
could be even faster. If they aren't, the function call overhead would
make it slower except for very long strings. (Another argument against the
big-O notation as being the only "right" way to talk about the speed of
code.)
--
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")
Wade Ward
> Randy Howard wrote:
> > Nick Keighley wrote
>
> >> Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
> >> But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
>
> > They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
> > Pop's incredibly polite responses.
>
> Ahh yes. He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
> always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. :-) Does
> anyone know where he went?
with his posts, but he offered me one-on-one advice as well, helping
solve *my* problems, not either recasting them in terms of the
standard or declaring them OT. He was seen as a counterweight to
Keith, and without him, there's just the weight.
Last Dan was on my radar, he was just outside Berlin.
--
p.s. Chris Hills, actuarially and actual are different words see
upthread
Chris Hills
<f7a5b50e-b2e3-415b...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com>, Wade
Ward <zax...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jan 18, 6:48 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Randy Howard wrote:
>> > Nick Keighley wrote
>>
>> >> Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
>> >> But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
>>
>> > They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
>> > Pop's incredibly polite responses.
>>
>> Ahh yes. He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
>> always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. :-) Does
>> anyone know where he went?
>I was a usenet newbie when Dan was posting. Not only was he generous
>with his posts, but he offered me one-on-one advice as well, helping
>solve *my* problems, not either recasting them in terms of the
>standard or declaring them OT.
That is good. Help with the C problem without getting silly about OT or
UB etc where it has little relevance in reality.
> He was seen as a counterweight to
>Keith, and without him, there's just the weight.
>Last Dan was on my radar, he was just outside Berlin.
>--
>
>p.s. Chris Hills, actuarially and actual are different words see
>upthread
For my sins I am slykdyxic (Dyslexic) and a bloody awful typist... I
must admit I don't check my posts as well as I should.
Kenny McCormack
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote in response to someone
else:
...
>>I was a usenet newbie when Dan was posting. Not only was he generous
>>with his posts, but he offered me one-on-one advice as well, helping
>>solve *my* problems, not either recasting them in terms of the
>>standard or declaring them OT.
>
>That is good. Help with the C problem without getting silly about OT or
>UB etc where it has little relevance in reality.
It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out heresy
(i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that which
defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the "good works",
which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's existence.
>> He was seen as a counterweight to
>>Keith, and without him, there's just the weight.
Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and other
similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
moderates out.
Richard
I find it amusing that that self absorbed nincompoop Falconer obviously
models himself on the more vindictive side of Dan.
Malcolm McLean
"Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote in message
> In article <$FoU9zDp...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
> It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out heresy
> (i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that which
> defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the "good works",
> which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's existence.
>
> similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
> moderates out.
>
I've done it myself by requesting the deprecation and eventual removal of
size_t. However really that discussion belongs on comp.std.c - here we
discuss how to make the best of the standard as it is.
To say that a religious creed - e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus - is not
useful because, to take a real complaint, it presents an ideal unattainable
by other women may be true, but it is kind of pointless. The reality is what
it is, and won't be different because of anyone's personal convenience or
opinions about what she should aspire to be.
<OT>
You can do good works with Oxfam, or UNICEF, or even the Mafia. Sensible
gangsters contribute generously to charity. What you cannot do is achieve
salvation outside of the Church.
</OT>
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
santosh
>
> "Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote in message
>> In article <$FoU9zDp...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>> It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out
>> heresy (i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that
>> which defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the
>> "good works", which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's
>> existence.
>>
>> Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and
>> other similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
>> moderates out.
>>
> To state that the standard is not useful and should be changed is
> sensible. I've done it myself by requesting the deprecation and
> eventual removal of size_t. However really that discussion belongs on
> comp.std.c - here we discuss how to make the best of the standard as
> it is.
<snip>
You should have stopped here. Now we'll likely have another long
subthread on religion.
Kenny McCormack
Malcolm McLean <regn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote in message
>> In article <$FoU9zDp...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>> It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out heresy
>> (i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that which
>> defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the "good works",
>> which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's existence.
>>
>> Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and other
>> similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
>> moderates out.
>>
>To state that the standard is not useful and should be changed is sensible.
>I've done it myself by requesting the deprecation and eventual removal of
>size_t. However really that discussion belongs on comp.std.c - here we
>discuss how to make the best of the standard as it is.
While true, this has nothing to do with anything I've posted.
Or, as I like to put it, sun still rising in east, Francisco Franco
still dead.
>To say that a religious creed - e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus - is not
>useful because, to take a real complaint, it presents an ideal unattainable
>by other women may be true, but it is kind of pointless. The reality is what
>it is, and won't be different because of anyone's personal convenience or
>opinions about what she should aspire to be.
><OT>
>You can do good works with Oxfam, or UNICEF, or even the Mafia. Sensible
>gangsters contribute generously to charity. What you cannot do is achieve
>salvation outside of the Church.
></OT>
Wait a sec! You're not a religious whack job, are you?
And to think I once had some respect for your posts...
Malcolm McLean
"Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote
>><OT>
>>You can do good works with Oxfam, or UNICEF, or even the Mafia.
>>Sensible gangsters contribute generously to charity. What you cannot do is
>> >>achieve salvation outside of the Church.
>></OT>
>
> Wait a sec! You're not a religious whack job, are you?
>
> And to think I once had some respect for your posts...
<OT>
There's plenty of religious material on my website.
I recommend "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". That's a statement we both agree
with, the issue is whether the implied corollary is true.
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm/ExtraEcclesiam.html
</OT>
However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there will be no
further followups from me.
Default User
>
> "Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote
[blah blah]
> However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there will
> be no further followups from me.
That should be the going-in position with trolls like Kenny.
Brian
CBFalconer
>
> However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there
> will be no further followups from me.
Good. Meanwhile you have attracted only trolls and Santosh.
Old Wolf
> Simply stating UB or "not proper C" with no explanation is the sort
> arrogance you only come across in people who delight in proving
> themselves superior to the poor person asking such a stupid question
> without actually helping anyone.
Who are you to say that ? It seems highly arrogant to me
to be ascribing such motives to people simply based on the
length of the answer.
> I get pissed off with some here who will like take a program apart line
> by line saying "not proper C" to UB without being in the slighted help
> to anyone other than their own ego and belief that they are the only one
> who is technically right .
Another case of you inventing motives, ascribing them to
people, and then denigrating the person for having said motives.
> In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
> program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).
>
> You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
> correct prototype is probably: int main (void)
>
> You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
> following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.
The posters are offering their time and help of their own
good will. It's rich of you to criticize the advice for
not being good enough. If you think the advice is poor, then
why not post your own advice that is up to your standards? Then
the original poster will be able to heed whichever message(s)
he finds most useful. That's how public message forums are
meant to work.
This isn't some proprietary Q/A system. Nobody appointed you
to be the posting coach for the rest of the posters. In fact
you insult the original poster by implying that he's unable
to distinguish useful posts from non-useful posts.
> Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
> been a perfectly legal free-standing program.
Well, a legal free-standing program could fail to compile
strcpy, and return NULL for every call to malloc. I think
even you would agree that it would be pedantic and not
very useful to point these things out every time somebody
mentions strcpy and malloc.
Hence the convention that one assumes a program is on a hosted
implementation, unless otherwise stated. Try to use your
common sense once in a while?
Antoninus Twink
> On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
>> program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).
>>
>> You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
>> correct prototype is probably: int main (void)
>>
>> You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
>> following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.
>
> The posters are offering their time and help of their own
> good will. It's rich of you to criticize the advice for
> not being good enough. If you think the advice is poor, then
> why not post your own advice that is up to your standards? Then
> the original poster will be able to heed whichever message(s)
> he finds most useful.
He does, frequently.
The problem is that the very same posters who supply the scornful and
unhelpful replies to newbies who happen to know fewer obscure details
from the C Standard than them - these same posters are the ones who
delight in smacking down other replies for being "off-topic, not C, blah
blah blah".
So the OP *doesn't* get to choose between the two forms of advice,
because the real world C programmers who post here get drowned out by
the yapping of Heathfield's topicality guard-dogs (and usually
disappear quickly rather than keep wasting their time banging their
heads on a wall).
>> Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
>> been a perfectly legal free-standing program.
>
> Well, a legal free-standing program could fail to compile
> strcpy, and return NULL for every call to malloc. I think
> even you would agree that it would be pedantic and not
> very useful to point these things out every time somebody
> mentions strcpy and malloc.
>
> Hence the convention that one assumes a program is on a hosted
> implementation, unless otherwise stated. Try to use your
> common sense once in a while?
Whoosh, as the whole point of the quoted sentence from Chris soars a
mile above "Old Wolf"'s head.
Common sense is not welcome in clc.
Chris Hills
<0344d3ca-8324-4266...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Old
Wolf <old...@inspire.net.nz> writes
>On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> Simply stating UB or "not proper C" with no explanation is the sort
>> arrogance you only come across in people who delight in proving
>> themselves superior to the poor person asking such a stupid question
>> without actually helping anyone.
>
>Who are you to say that ? It seems highly arrogant to me
>to be ascribing such motives to people simply based on the
>length of the answer.
Simply on the their modus operandi and long discussions with them over
the better part of a decade.
>
>> I get pissed off with some here who will like take a program apart line
>> by line saying "not proper C" to UB without being in the slighted help
>> to anyone other than their own ego and belief that they are the only one
>> who is technically right .
>
>Another case of you inventing motives, ascribing them to
>people, and then denigrating the person for having said motives.
As you are also doing,.
>> In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
>> program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).
>>
>> You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
>> correct prototype is probably: int main (void)
>>
>> You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
>> following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.
>
>The posters are offering their time and help of their own
>good will.
CRAP. See the rest of the various long threads on here
>It's rich of you to criticize the advice for
>not being good enough. If you think the advice is poor, then
>why not post your own advice that is up to your standards? Then
>the original poster will be able to heed whichever message(s)
>he finds most useful. That's how public message forums are
>meant to work.
I know. I have posted and do but less so these days as the thought
police have a go at me. I do my bit for improving C in other places.
>This isn't some proprietary Q/A system. Nobody appointed you
>to be the posting coach for the rest of the posters.
Nor any of the others who invent the "rules" here. And than do all this
OT and UB posting.
> In fact
>you insult the original poster by implying that he's unable
>to distinguish useful posts from non-useful posts.
Not at all.
>> Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
>> been a perfectly legal free-standing program.
>
>Well, a legal free-standing program could fail to compile
>strcpy, and return NULL for every call to malloc. I think
>even you would agree that it would be pedantic and not
>very useful to point these things out every time somebody
>mentions strcpy and malloc.
It depends how it is done... and what is meant by "every time"
>Hence the convention that one assumes a program is on a hosted
>implementation, unless otherwise stated.
YOU assume that. I don't BTW you don't get to make the rules...
>Try to use your
>common sense once in a while?
Likewise.
Chris Hills
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>On 23 Jan 2008 at 4:27, Old Wolf wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
>>> program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).
>>>
>>> You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
>>> correct prototype is probably: int main (void)
>>>
>>> You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
>>> following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.
>>
>> The posters are offering their time and help of their own
>> good will. It's rich of you to criticize the advice for
>> not being good enough. If you think the advice is poor, then
>> why not post your own advice that is up to your standards? Then
>> the original poster will be able to heed whichever message(s)
>> he finds most useful.
>
>He does, frequently.
>
>The problem is that the very same posters who supply the scornful and
>unhelpful replies to newbies who happen to know fewer obscure details
>from the C Standard than them - these same posters are the ones who
>delight in smacking down other replies for being "off-topic, not C, blah
>blah blah".
The other point is pure ISO C is neither implemented nor used by the
vast majority of the world. So quoting pure ISO C at people who are not
using it (which is 99% of the world) is pointless in many cases.
We have to work with the tools that are out there. It's not my fault the
standard is wrong.
>So the OP *doesn't* get to choose between the two forms of advice,
>because the real world C programmers who post here get drowned out by
>the yapping of Heathfield's topicality guard-dogs (and usually
>disappear quickly rather than keep wasting their time banging their
>heads on a wall).
>
>>> Because if you want to be as pedantic as some people do it could have
>>> been a perfectly legal free-standing program.
>>
>> Well, a legal free-standing program could fail to compile
>> strcpy, and return NULL for every call to malloc. I think
>> even you would agree that it would be pedantic and not
>> very useful to point these things out every time somebody
>> mentions strcpy and malloc.
>>
>> Hence the convention that one assumes a program is on a hosted
>> implementation, unless otherwise stated. Try to use your
>> common sense once in a while?
>
>Whoosh, as the whole point of the quoted sentence from Chris soars a
>mile above "Old Wolf"'s head.
>
>Common sense is not welcome in clc.
>
--
Chris Dollin
> The other point is pure ISO C is neither implemented nor used by the
> vast majority of the world.
But impure ISO C is; and we can portably comment on the ISO C aspects
and direct posters to relevant newsgroups for the nonportable bits,
where they can get the required implementation-specific help.
> So quoting pure ISO C at people who are not
> using it (which is 99% of the world) is pointless in many cases.
/On it's own/, in /some/ cases, yes. But once you open the portal
to non-ISO and non-C topics, where are you going to stop? Are you
going to stop at all? Arguments about topicality are inevitable;
only the boundary changes.
[I don't really care; while the S/N ratio is reasonable I'll be
here; when it isn't, I'll go; I would be sorry to lose what I
see as a valuable resource, and sorry to stop trying to pay back
what I have learned here, but life is finite and regret just
another kind of slow poison.]
> We have to work with the tools that are out there.
That's not the /only/ thing we can do.
> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
--
Varying Degrees Hedgehog
"Based on their behaviour so far -- I have no idea" /Sahara/
santosh
IME it's quite common to get newbies here who use extensions (like
conio.h etc.) that are actually totally unnecessary to their purpose.
They do so because they have only read the implementation's
documentation (which obviously would encourage it's extensions), or
poor tutorials and textbooks, targeted specifically for DOS, Visual C++
etc.
IMHO it's quite correct to point out to such newbies about the trap they
may be falling into and encourage portable alternatives.
<snip>
Chris Hills
Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
>
>Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
:-)
Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
Chris Dollin
> In article <IeLlj.21195$xm1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
>>
>>Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
> :-)
>
> Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
You're asking /me/?
--
Chance Brother Hedgehog
"Who do you serve, and who do you trust?" /Crusade/
Chris Hills
<santo...@gmail.com> writes
If it is explained why it is not portable and the portable alternative
aslo explained then it is god. Simply saying "UB" is not being helpful
Chris Hills
>Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> In article <IeLlj.21195$xm1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
>> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
>>>
>>>Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
>> :-)
>>
>> Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
>
>You're asking /me/?
No telling you. All the indications I have see are that it will do so.
Actually the New spirit of C is
a Trust the Programmer
b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
c Keep the Language small and simple
d Provide only one way to do an operation
e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
f Make support for safety and security demonstrable
Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90
Walter Roberson
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Actually the New spirit of C is
>a Trust the Programmer
>b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
>c Keep the Language small and simple
>d Provide only one way to do an operation
>e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
>f Make support for safety and security demonstrable
>Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90
>d Provide only one way to do an operation
Ah... so ++ and -- will be gone, replaced by += 1 and -= 1 ?
And p[q] will be removed, replaced by *(p+q) ?
And strlen(r) will be replaced by snprintf("%s", 0, r) ?
--
"I was very young in those days, but I was also rather dim."
-- Christopher Priest
Richard Heathfield
> In article <$Tj0IpFG...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>d Provide only one way to do an operation
>
> Ah... so ++ and -- will be gone, replaced by += 1 and -= 1 ?
No, you'll have to replace them by: x = x + 1; and x = x - 1;
> And p[q] will be removed, replaced by *(p+q) ?
Also the compiler must ensure that the programmer does write the pointer
value first: *(q + p) must be outlawed.
> And strlen(r) will be replaced by snprintf("%s", 0, r) ?
So much for compatibility with C90. :-)
Richard
> On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> Simply stating UB or "not proper C" with no explanation is the sort
>> arrogance you only come across in people who delight in proving
>> themselves superior to the poor person asking such a stupid question
>> without actually helping anyone.
>
> Who are you to say that ? It seems highly arrogant to me
> to be ascribing such motives to people simply based on the
> length of the answer.
What other motive can there be?
"UB" is not an answer to be given in a HELP group. Simple really. But as
part of the established clique you will undoubtedly feign ignorance.
Chris Hills is quite correct.
Richard
very well put and my initial reaction when I returned to this group
after a long absence. I was *shocked* at how this group had degraded
into some sort of egofest.
Richard
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> "Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there
>> will be no further followups from me.
>
> Good. Meanwhile you have attracted only trolls and Santosh.
>
> --
> [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
> [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
> Try the download section.
Were you aware that you are still posting with a double signature
despite being asked numerous times to move from teranews to another free
server which does not add the second signature.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> The other point is pure ISO C is neither implemented nor used by
> the vast majority of the world. So quoting pure ISO C at people
> who are not using it (which is 99% of the world) is pointless in
> many cases.
So you don't think those 'users' should write in ISO standard C,
and be able to have their code run almost anywhere, unchanged. It
is therefore, according to you, better to encourage their use of
these generally unsupported and odd extensions etc., making their
code operant only on the compiler/system/issue on which it was
developed.
Am I accurately summarizing your attitude? This will admirably
maintain the "99% idiots" classification of general users.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Randy Howard
(in article <$Tj0IpFG...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
> In article <kgMlj.254710$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>> In article <IeLlj.21195$xm1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
>>> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>>>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
>>>> -)
>>>
>>> Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
>>
>> You're asking /me/?
>
> No telling you. All the indications I have see are that it will do so.
>
> Actually the New spirit of C is
>
> a Trust the Programmer
Dangerous, but not really the language standard's concern.
> b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
Is Microsoft still working actively to try and make it unusable?
> c Keep the Language small and simple
Bye-bye silly math functions?
> d Provide only one way to do an operation
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would break pretty much all
software. What does it really mean?
> e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
Whoops. That's the nail in the coffin right there. I'll stick with
C90, thank you very much.
> f Make support for safety and security demonstrable
You demonstrate that you have support for safety and security by ....
wait for it... leaving gets() in the standard. ;-)
> Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90
Just bump the date stamp on C95 and call it C-whatever. Remove gets().
Done. Have a nice day.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard
(in article <zoednWEYKqBwXgra...@bt.com>):
> Walter Roberson said:
>
>> In article <$Tj0IpFG...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>> Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>>> d Provide only one way to do an operation
>>
>> Ah... so ++ and -- will be gone, replaced by += 1 and -= 1 ?
>
> No, you'll have to replace them by: x = x + 1; and x = x - 1;
>
>> And p[q] will be removed, replaced by *(p+q) ?
>
> Also the compiler must ensure that the programmer does write the pointer
> value first: *(q + p) must be outlawed.
>
>> And strlen(r) will be replaced by snprintf("%s", 0, r) ?
>
> So much for compatibility with C90. :-)
Doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that most people will still be
writing basically C89 with minor additions in 2050.
Richard Harter
<cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> The other point is pure ISO C is neither implemented nor used by
>> the vast majority of the world. So quoting pure ISO C at people
>> who are not using it (which is 99% of the world) is pointless in
>> many cases.
>
>So you don't think those 'users' should write in ISO standard C,
>and be able to have their code run almost anywhere, unchanged. It
>is therefore, according to you, better to encourage their use of
>these generally unsupported and odd extensions etc., making their
>code operant only on the compiler/system/issue on which it was
>developed.
>
>Am I accurately summarizing your attitude? This will admirably
>maintain the "99% idiots" classification of general users.
The accuracy and precision of your summary can be best captured
in one word - codswallop. Jeez, what twaddle.
Chris Dollin
> In article <kgMlj.254710$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>> In article <IeLlj.21195$xm1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
>>> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
>>
>>You're asking /me/?
>
> No telling you.
Then I think a full stop, rather than a question mark, would
have been less misleading (just as putting in a comma in your
remark above would have avoided my initial misreading).
Yes, I understand rhetorical questions; no, it didn't read
like an intentional rhetorical question.
> All the indications I have see are that it will do so.
>
> Actually the New spirit of C is
>
> a Trust the Programmer
> b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
> c Keep the Language small and simple
> d Provide only one way to do an operation
> e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
> f Make support for safety and security demonstrable
>
> Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90
(fx:snark) And for my next trick, 2 + 2 = 5.
I don't think those are all simultaneously achievable; I have
an (irrelevant) opinion as to whether they're simultaneously
desirable.
--
Too Much Or Too Little? Hedgehog
Notmuchhere: http://www.electrichedgehog.net/
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> The other point is pure ISO C is neither implemented nor used by the
> vast majority of the world.
C90 is widely implemented, and widely used.
> So quoting pure ISO C at people who are not
> using it (which is 99% of the world) is pointless in many cases.
Lots of people are using VB.NET, though - shall we quote that at them
instead? Check the name of the group. There are a great many cases where
ISO C *is* useful, and those cases are the ones we can rationally discuss
here.
> We have to work with the tools that are out there.
C90 is out there. (C99 largely isn't.)
> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
I thought you were on the ISO C Committee that designed C99? I mean, by all
means correct me if I'm mistaken about that, but I'd have thought that the
fault that C99 is so useless lies mostly with the people who designed it
and voted for it. (Or did you vote against?)
<snip>
Chris Hills
<rgr...@gmail.com> writes
That is irrelevant... only the c.l.c zealots can pick and choose the
points at which they are pedants with the rules.
Chris Hills
<cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> The other point is pure ISO C is neither implemented nor used by
>> the vast majority of the world. So quoting pure ISO C at people
>> who are not using it (which is 99% of the world) is pointless in
>> many cases.
>
>So you don't think those 'users' should write in ISO standard C,
They don't use C99, the ISO standard now. The standard moved away from
it's users
>and be able to have their code run almost anywhere, unchanged.
Complexly irrelevant to the majority .
> It
>is therefore, according to you, better to encourage their use of
>these generally unsupported and odd extensions etc.,
The extensions are supported by the tools it is just the standard that
isn't.
> making their
>code operant only on the compiler/system/issue on which it was
>developed.
That is all may require.
>Am I accurately summarizing your attitude? This will admirably
>maintain the "99% idiots" classification of general users.
This is the attitude that reflects in your posts when asked for help.
Chris Hills
<rgr...@gmail.com> writes
Being able to quote the standard in a way that is unhelpful to new or
inexperienced users is on no help to anyone bar the ego of the pedant
Chris Hills
Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:28:06 -0600, Chris Hills wrote
>(in article <$Tj0IpFG...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
>
>> In article <kgMlj.254710$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
>> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <IeLlj.21195$xm1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Chris
>>>> Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.net> writes
>>>>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
>>>>> -)
>>>>
>>>> Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
>>>
>>> You're asking /me/?
>>
>> No telling you. All the indications I have see are that it will do so.
>>
>> Actually the New spirit of C is
>>
>> a Trust the Programmer
>
>Dangerous, but not really the language standard's concern.
I would agree
>
>> b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
>
>Is Microsoft still working actively to try and make it unusable?
Yes AFAIK
>> c Keep the Language small and simple
>
>Bye-bye silly math functions?
Yes
>> d Provide only one way to do an operation
>Taken to its logical conclusion, this would break pretty much all
>software. What does it really mean?
>
>> e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
>
>Whoops. That's the nail in the coffin right there. I'll stick with
>C90, thank you very much.
Why? What if the compilers don't?
>> f Make support for safety and security demonstrable
>
>You demonstrate that you have support for safety and security by ....
>wait for it... leaving gets() in the standard. ;-)
:-)
>> Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90
>
>Just bump the date stamp on C95 and call it C-whatever. Remove gets().
> Done. Have a nice day.
:-))))