ANN An ansic90 version of lcc-win
jacob navia
This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.
Usage:
lc -ansic90 foo.c
The "driver" lc.exe will call lcc90.exe with the appropiate
options.
Note that the latest download of lcc-win has several new executables:
lcc90.exe C90 compiler
lcclnk90.exe linker
Note that there is no optimizer, no long longs, long doubles are
the same size of doubles, no extensions etc.
This compiler emits tons of warnings since for instance assignment of
an unsigned char * to a char * is not well seen...
The only thing that was already there is the _stdcall feature. This
feature will be recognized only at the *global* level, i.e. you can
write
int fn(void)
{
int _stdcall = 56;
}
Compilation of windows headers is problematic, probably because they use
anonymous unions, long long, and other goodies.
This version is not a toy compiler however. It is able to compile
itself, and the resulting executable has 30-40% of the speed of
a program compiled with the C99 version of lcc-win.
The library used is CRTDLL.DLL, what implies that there is a C90
printf, and all other functions of the C90 standard library.
This means also that programs link with a dynamic library and
are therefore smaller than equivalent programs with lcc-win.
(Several dozen Kb)
tea strainer
> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
>
> This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
> from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
> to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.
Good news, though this interest in ISO standards has come a bit late in
the day.
I hope that in the next few months, you will be back-porting recent
optimizations etc. from the current lccwin32 to this Standards Compliant
version.
luserXtrog
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:41:14 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> > Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
>
> > This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
> > from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
> > to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.
>
> Good news, though this interest in ISO standards has come a bit late in
> the day.
But earlier than tomorrow!
--
edgewordwise
Keith Thompson
> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
Great!
Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Richard Heathfield
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
>> lcc-win.
> [snip]
>
> Great!
>
> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Chris McDonald
>In <lnbpl0y...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
>>> lcc-win.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
>I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
>"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
>people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
>few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of c.l.c.,
so it is not unreasonable to believe him.
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
That's precisely why I said "may".
> so it is not unreasonable to believe him.
I have seen him mess up often enough that I have learned not to take
what he says at face value.
Chris McDonald
>In <h9hise$3uu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>In <lnbpl0y...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>>>>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
>>>>> lcc-win.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Great!
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
>>
>>>I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
>>>"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
>>>people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
>>>few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
>>
>> We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of c.l.c.,
>That's precisely why I said "may".
Then why did you definitively state
"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however."
?
Do you read Jacob's email?
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
In clc terms, that statement is true.
> Do you read Jacob's email?
No. That's why I said "may".
Chris McDonald
Weasel words.
You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's efforts.
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on
the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
about either me or those implementations.
Chris McDonald
>the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
>point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
>Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
>about either me or those implementations.
Richard, off your high horse.
+ You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software.
+ You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
requests that he received.
+ You do not have that knowledge.
+ You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
+ There is no such universe.
+ I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.
+ I made no statement about Jacob's implementations, nor any statement
that you have attacked them.
Which of my statements, above, is false?
Good luck.
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
>>Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever
>>on the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing
>>the point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on
>>Jacob Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it
>>does about either me or those implementations.
>
>
> Richard, off your high horse.
Stick to the facts.
>
> + You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
> supporting version of his software.
No, I did not say anything of the kind.
> + You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
> requests that he received.
No, I did not.
> + You do not have that knowledge.
Right. And I'm bright enough to know that, and you should be bright
enough to know that I'm bright enough to know that. If you're not
that bright, that's your problem, not mine.
> + You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement
> claiming
> some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
No, you read more into my original statement than was there. That's
your problem, not mine.
> + There is no such universe.
There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously.
> + I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
> contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.
Your screwups are your problem.
> + I made no statement about Jacob's implementations, nor any
> statement that you have attacked them.
You wrote: "You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down
Jacob's efforts." To what efforts were you referring, if not his
implementations? And how do you explain "shoot down" if you are
trying to maintain that it doesn't mean "attack"?
> Which of my statements, above, is false?
1) "You clearly stated..." - FALSE
2) "You stated this as if..." - FALSE
3) "You do not have that knowledge." - TRUE, and I never claimed to
have it.
4) "You then attempted..." - FALSE
5) "There is no such universe." - Mu. I made no claim that a
comp.lang.c universe exists. I do make the claim that a comp.lang.c
community exists.
6) "I stated that..." - TRUE, you did indeed make that statement, but
it was a false statement.
7) "I made no statement about..." - FALSE
So four of your statements were false, two were true (one of which
referred to a previous false statement), and one was based on a false
assumption and therefore meaningless.
> Good luck.
Why would I need good luck? I'm not the one who screwed up.
jacob navia
>
> There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
> is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
> made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
> remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
> brain takes him seriously.
>
Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.
Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms to
C90. You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".
Nick Keighley
> In <h9hn7k$84...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
>
> >>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
>
> >>>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
that's how I read what you wrote. Jacob can miss some subtlties.
Nick Keighley
> >Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on
> >the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
> >point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
> >Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
> >about either me or those implementations.
>
> Richard, off your high horse.
good start
I've rearranged your post slightly
> Which of my statements, [below], is false?
> + You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
> supporting version of his software.
false (there was a "may" in the initial statement)
> + You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
> requests that he received.
false. We all make statements based on the knowledge available to us.
clc seems a reasonable forum to judge someone by
> + You do not have that knowledge.
trueish. But disengenuous. he never claimed omniscience
> + You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
> some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
false
> + There is no such universe.
how do you know? (philosopically I don't believe in alternate
universes
but it has yet to be conclusivly demonstrated that they don't exist)
> + I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
> contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.
it is true that you said that, but it was a false statement
> + I made no statement about Jacob's implementations,
true but no one said you did
> nor any statement that you have attacked them.
false
you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
you
persecuted
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
>>
>> There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community,
>> it is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that
>> lcc-win32 be made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such
>> requests I remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and
>> nobody with a brain takes him seriously.
>>
>
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms
> to no standard" because I failed to reject // comments.
I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
// comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
of fact. You have now announced a version that does diagnose these
comments.
> Now, I have developed a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi
> C90.
Not quite, but I know what you mean. ANSI C is often abbrev'd to C89.
C90 was an ISO Standard. (Since it's word-for-word identical in all
the relevant bits, confusing them is IMHO no big deal, but it does
bear pointing out even so.)
> Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.
Words fail me. All I said was that there is little evidence in
comp.lang.c of demand for a C90-conforming version of lcc-win32. I
still think that's true. (And it's rightly true, since expression of
such demand would not be topical in comp.lang.c.) To assess the level
of demand for such an implementation, the best place to read would be
comp.compilers.lcc (to which I note that this thread has been
crossposted).
> Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms
> to C90.
Why would I do that? I already have several C90 compilers, and your
implementation doesn't fill any gaps for me.
> You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".
I'm delighted to hear it. I hope it's true, and certainly I have no
evidence to the contrary at present.
Richard Heathfield
<1aea5649-5f27-41f0...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 25 Sep, 07:32, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> In <h9hn7k$84...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> > Weasel words.
>> > You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's
>> > efforts.
>>
>> Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever
>> on the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing
>> the point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on
>> Jacob Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it
>> does about either me or those implementations.
>
> that's how I read what you wrote. Jacob can miss some subtlties.
In this case, it was Chris McDonald who missed some obviosities.
Chris McDonald
Richard H,
I was wrong when stating
"You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software."
For that misquote I apologize.
You did state:
"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
So, you did not state "...no people...", but you did state "...very few..."
I was wong.
However, you remain ignorant of just how many such requests Jacob has received,
as there really is a universe outside of c.l.c.
Good luck,
--
Chris.
Chris McDonald
>you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
Touche, but no!
>you
>persecuted
Been typing long?
--
Chris.
Chris McDonald
>you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
>you
>persecuted
OK, enough of this banter based on my inability to read.
Edward's back with a news update on Schildt.....
-
Chris.
Seebs
> OK, enough of this banter based on my inability to read.
Oh, but it was just getting fun!
> Edward's back with a news update on Schildt.....
Yes, and he seems to have gone from insinuations that I'm somehow secretly
moderating against him to the notion that I ought to have been moderating
more aggressively.
There is just no pleasing some people[*].
-s
[*] This may actually not be true, but I really don't feel safe plugging
that thing in to 240V power.
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard H,
>
> I was wrong when stating
>
> "You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a
> C90 supporting version of his software."
>
> For that misquote I apologize.
Well said.
> You did state:
>
> "Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to
> C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
Yes.
>
> So, you did not state "...no people...", but you did state "...very
> few..." I was wong.
Yes. And of course my "universe of discourse" (or rather, my community
of discourse) was this newsgroup. Obviously I have no knowledge of
the level of demand expressed privately to Jacob Navia via, say,
email or snailmail or fax or telephone or Instant Messenger or
carrier pigeon or semaphore or coded messages hidden in the flight
paths of butterflies.
> However, you remain ignorant of just how many such requests Jacob
> has received,
Yes. See above.
> as there really is a universe outside of c.l.c.
The universe /includes/ clc. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to
recognise the existence of distinct communities within any given
universe.
Nick Keighley
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
>
> Touche, but no!
>
> >you
> >persecuted
>
> Been typing long?
yes, but badly
Noob
I would not trust software from a persistent spammer.
Richard Heathfield
> jacob navia wrote: [spam]
>
> I would not trust software from a persistent spammer.
I would not trust bile from an anonymous coward.
bartc
"Noob" <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:h9i07t$pre$1...@aioe.org...
> jacob navia wrote: [spam]
>
> I would not trust software from a persistent spammer.
You might have some trouble obtaining it; there was no URL in the original
post.
Richard Heathfield
I was going to do JN a favour by posting it, but I can't find a URL
for it anywhere.
FWIW an announcement of a new (or newly conforming) implementation
*is* topical here. IMHO.
Chris McDonald
>I was going to do JN a favour by posting it, but I can't find a URL
>for it anywhere.
Here it is:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=jacob+navia+%22lcc-win%22
--
Chris.
Dik T. Winter
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
> > There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
> > is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
> > made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
> > remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
> > brain takes him seriously.
>
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
> a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
You are confusing "stating that a compiler does not conform to some
standard" with "request to make the compiler conform to some standard".
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Dik T. Winter
...
> >>>I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
> >>>"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
> >>>people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
> >>>few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
Note the above, and see that when you read a later follow-up by Jacob you
will find that Richard is right.
Keith Thompson
A Google search for
jacob nava "lcc-win"
does not, as far as I can tell, lead to a download site for the
C90-compliant version. Neither of the two main download sites for
lcc-win appears to mention the C90-compliant version.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
bartc
"Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
news:lnpr9fx...@nuthaus.mib.org...
> Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> writes:
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>I was going to do JN a favour by posting it, but I can't find a URL
>>>for it anywhere.
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=jacob+navia+%22lcc-win%22
>
> A Google search for
> jacob nava "lcc-win"
> does not, as far as I can tell, lead to a download site for the
> C90-compliant version. Neither of the two main download sites for
> lcc-win appears to mention the C90-compliant version.
I suspect it might just be bundled with the normal lccwin32 distribution.
--
bartc
Keith Thompson
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
> [snip]
>
> Great!
>
> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
jacob, I regret that this simple question led to a flame war.
Everyone else: Here's an idea. If poster A asks a question
directed at poster B, particularly if it's a question that only
poster B is in a position to answer definitively, let's sit back
for a while and give poster B a chance to answer it before jumping
in with speculation about how poster B *might* respond given his
past history and/or how we think he *should* respond.
jacob, I'm still interested in knowing what "popular demand" you're
referring to. I do have some thoughts about what you might mean,
but I'll keep them to myself until I see what you have to say.
You've posted one response in this thread, but it didn't seem to be
an answer to my question; if it was intended to be, please say so.
If the phrase "Due to popular demand" wasn't meant to be taken
seriously, I'd be interested in knowing that as well.
jameskuyper
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
> >
> > There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
> > is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
> > made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
> > remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
> > brain takes him seriously.
> >
>
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" because I failed to reject // comments.
True. But that was simply a statement of fact, not a request "that lcc-
win32 be made to conform with C90". I don't believe that anyone other
than one nutcase has ever given you such a request. Whether or not
your compiler should conform with C is purely your own concern. My own
interest in the issue has solely been about the accuracy of
conformance claims.
Kenny McCormack
What you say is, on the surface, true. However, no one really believes it.
No one seriously believes that when Dicky talks to (or, more likely, about)
Jacob, there is any intent other than character assasination.
Points:
1) Teabag is almost certainly a Dicky sock puppet.
2) I will grant that I don't believe for a second (nor should
anyone so believe) that Dicky and/or Kiki (hereinafter: DK)
really give a hoot whether or not Jacob's compiler complies with
any standard. It's not like either one of them is ever going to
use it. I.e., I don't see why anyone outside of Jacob's
userbase should give a hoot. I also don't see why anyone inside
of Jacob's userbase should care either - but that is another
thread.
3) However, that said, it is then hard to interpret their constant
nagging about his supposed non-compliance as anything other than
bullying and/or character assasination. Otherwise, why should
they care? Why should they bother?
4) I think Jacob is a real sucker for giving them endless
opportunities to shit upon him. I don't understand why he
bothers posting here.
jacob navia
Exactly.
jacob navia
> 4) I think Jacob is a real sucker for giving them endless
> opportunities to shit upon him. I don't understand why he
> bothers posting here.
>
Yes, I think sometimes I should stop this.
But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
participating.
I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
they do not think like the "regulars" group.
So, I try to make my viewpoint continue. There is NO reason to
leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.
Keith Thompson
> bartc a écrit :
Ok, that makes sense. It would have been helpful if you'd mentioned
that in your announcement and/or on the web page.
Richard Heathfield
> Kenny McCormack a �crit :
>> 4) I think Jacob is a real sucker for giving them endless
>> opportunities to shit upon him. I don't understand why he
>> bothers posting here.
>>
>
> Yes, I think sometimes I should stop this.
FWIW, the troll is either intentionally or inadvertently mistaken.
Nobody here (except the teapot idiot and also, it has to be said,
Herbert Rosenau) is trying to attack you.
> But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
> that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
> participating.
Reading /is/ participating (but I know what you mean). And of course
it is a good idea for anyone reading this forum, whether they post
here or not, to get a balanced view. Your best strategy would be to
assume that they are intelligent, and not easily fooled by irrational
or emotional arguments.
> I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
> they do not think like the "regulars" group.
The lurkers support me in email
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
Oh it's true, and you know they support me.
There's thousands of lurkers out there!
They all understand my intentions
you posters are not being fair!
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
The lurkers support me in email
"So why don't they post?" you all cry
They're scared of your hostile intentions
they're not as courageous as I.
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
One day I'll round up all my lurkers
we'll have a newsgroup of our own
without all this flak from you morons
my lurkers will post round my throne.
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
---- Jo Walton
> So, I try to make my viewpoint continue.
And when your viewpoint conflicts with the known facts, you can expect
to attract criticism of that viewpoint. The ability to benefit from
criticism is a hard skill to acquire, but it's a vital one.
> There is NO reason to
> leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.
Neither is there any reason to insult the regular contributors to this
group by claiming (wrongly) that they are "destroying" this forum.
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> whined:
...
>Ok, that makes sense. It would have been helpful if you'd mentioned
>that in your announcement and/or on the web page.
Bitch and moan.
Bitch and moan.
Bitch and moan.
Rui Maciel
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
> a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
>
> Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.
>
> Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms to
> C90. You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".
It's a shame that some compiler authors feel the need to comply to standards not due to any honorable
motives, such as the need to ensure interoperability and the satisfaction of providing a tool that behaves
according to the user's expectations, but just out of plain spite. Do you actually believe that all this
passive aggressiveness does anyone or anything any good?
Rui Maciel
jacob navia
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
>> standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
>> a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
>>
>> Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.
>>
>> Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms to
>> C90. You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".
>
> It's a shame that some compiler authors feel the need to comply to standards not due to any honorable
> motives, such as the need to ensure interoperability and the satisfaction of providing a tool that behaves
> according to the user's expectations, but just out of plain spite.
If heathfield complains that mcc-win does not conform to C90, and I
develop a version of lcc-win that does complain 100%, I am doing
it because of "spite" and "passive aggressiveness".
And how do you arrive at this stupidity?
> Do you actually believe that all this
> passive aggressiveness does anyone or anything any good?
"Passive aggressiveness" is a new term. Obviously I did not insult
anyone, nor did I do anyone any harm. That is why I am a "passive
aggressor" !!!
Well, I will frame your post in my gallery.
:-)
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> If heathfield complains that mcc-win does not conform to C90, and I
> develop a version of lcc-win that does complain 100%, I am doing
> it because of "spite" and "passive aggressiveness".
False assumptions lead to unreliable conclusions. I did not *complain*
that lcc-win does not conform to C90. I merely pointed it out. You
have never been under any obligation to produce a conforming C90
implementation, and I have always acknowledged this. Even so, you say
that you've now fixed that problem and can supply a conforming C90
implementation. That sounds to me like a cause for celebration.
<snip>
Rui Maciel
>> It's a shame that some compiler authors feel the need to comply to
>> standards not due to any honorable motives, such as the need to ensure
>> interoperability and the satisfaction of providing a tool that behaves
>> according to the user's expectations, but just out of plain spite.
>
> If heathfield complains that mcc-win does not conform to C90, and I
> develop a version of lcc-win that does complain 100%, I am doing
> it because of "spite" and "passive aggressiveness".
It appears that you don't quite remember or aren't aware of what you have been posting.
> And how do you arrive at this stupidity?
Although your poor judgment leads you to believe it's a suitable answer, you accomplish absolutely nothing
by trying to label comments you don't enjoy as being "stupid".
>> Do you actually believe that all this
>> passive aggressiveness does anyone or anything any good?
>
> "Passive aggressiveness" is a new term.
It may be a new term to you but it's pretty much common knowledge. Please browse through the following
article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior
> Obviously I did not insult anyone,
This is a very odd statement for two separate reasons. The first one is that in my reply I didn't accused
you of insulting anyone, which means your statement is unwarranted. The second is that in the exact same
post you make that statement (in fact, in the preceding sentence) you label something you didn't approved
as being "stupidity", which means you couldn't write two sentences in a row without contradicting yourself.
> nor did I do anyone any harm. That is why I am a "passive
> aggressor" !!!
Please read the article I've pointed out and then spend a couple of minutes reflecting on what you've been
posting.
> Well, I will frame your post in my gallery.
>
> :-)
If that makes you happy then please be my guest.
Rui Maciel
Friedrich Dominicus
w> It's a shame that some compiler authors feel the need to comply to standards not due to any honorable
> motives, such as the need to ensure interoperability and the satisfaction of providing a tool that behaves
> according to the user's expectations, but just out of plain spite. Do you actually believe that all this
> passive aggressiveness does anyone or anything any good?
Do you feel flaming around on every other quiestion does anyone
anything good?
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
Kenny McCormack
Friedrich Dominicus <just-for-...@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
>Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk>, posting as Rui Maciel <rui.m...@gmail.com>, but fooling noone, writes:
(nothing of value, as usual)
>Do you feel flaming around on every other quiestion does anyone
>anything good?
Yes. It satisfies various psycho-sexual needs of theirs.
(At least that's the best I can figure on it...)
Malcolm McLean
"Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
> // comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
> Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
> of fact.
>
Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his pomposity of
style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request for modification.
Rather it is a statement of fact.
True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it that way?
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson
It is not a statement of fact.
First, I dispute the accuracy of the phrase "widely hated".
There are some people who dislike him, but I believe there are more
who do not. I don't know that anyone actually hates him, though
perhaps there are some who do. We could have a lengthy argument
about the exact meanings of "widely" and "hated", and it would never
reach any meaningful conclusion, so let's not. The phrase is vague,
and to my understanding of its meaning, it is false.
Second, "pomposity of style" is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
I do not dispute that some people find his style pompous, but again,
there is no object standard for pomposity.
As for your odd claim that this is "not an attack", you deliberately
chose words that would normally be considered insulting. I suppose
you did so for the purpose of making a point. Since your point is
wrong, I won't comment further on whether it's an attack.
On the other hand, lcc-win32's lack of a diagnostic for // comments
quite simply does render it non-conforming to C90. This is not
merely an opinion, it is a simple fact about which there can, as far
as I can tell, be no reasonable disagreement. I could cite several
sections of the C90 standard which, taken together, demonstrate
that a conforming C90 compiler must issue a diagnostic for a //
comment (except in the rare and contrived cases where a C99 //
comment is legal, but not a comment, in C90), but I don't think
that's actually necessary.
So here are the facts.
Prior to jacob's recent announcement of a C90-conforming version of
lcc-win32, lcc-win32 did not diagnose // comments, and therefore did
not conform to the C90 standard. (Note that "conform" is synonymous
to "fully conform".) Richard pointed this out on several occasions.
Richard has never, as far as I recall, suggested that lcc-win32
*should* conform to C90.
This. Is. Not. An. Attack.
So how are your remarks relevant to this discussion?
Nick Keighley
Richard Heathfield
> "Malcolm McLean" <regn...@btinternet.com> writes:
<snip>
>> Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his
>> pomposity of style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request
>> for modification. Rather it is a statement of fact.
>>
>> True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it
>> that way?
>
> It is not a statement of fact.
You have been trolled. It's a forgery. Malcolm isn't that dense.
Keith Thompson
> In <lnab0gw...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Malcolm McLean" <regn...@btinternet.com> writes:
> <snip>
>
>>> Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his
>>> pomposity of style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request
>>> for modification. Rather it is a statement of fact.
>>>
>>> True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it
>>> that way?
>>
>> It is not a statement of fact.
>
> You have been trolled. It's a forgery. Malcolm isn't that dense.
>
> <snip>
I hope you're right, but the headers seem to be consistent with at
least one of Malcolm's previous articles. I'll reserve judgement
until Malcolm comments.
Tim Rentsch
> In article <h9hqti$jur$1...@aioe.org> j...@nospam.org writes:
> > Richard Heathfield a @C3{A9}crit :
> > > There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
> > > is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
> > > made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
> > > remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
> > > brain takes him seriously.
> >
> > Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> > standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
> > a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
>
> You are confusing "stating that a compiler does not conform to some
> standard" with "request to make the compiler conform to some standard".
You're reading something into the posting that it doesn't say.
It may be that Jacob took Richard's statement as a request, and
it may be that he didn't, but certainly his posting doesn't say
that he took it as a request. So it isn't clear just who is
confused in this instance.
Tim Rentsch
> jacob navia wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield a crit :
>> >
>> > There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
>> > is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
>> > made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
>> > remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
>> > brain takes him seriously.
>> >
>>
>> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
>> standard" because I failed to reject // comments.
>
> True. But that was simply a statement of fact, not a request "that lcc-
> win32 be made to conform with C90". I don't believe that anyone other
> than one nutcase has ever given you such a request. Whether or not
> your compiler should conform with C is purely your own concern.
Nonsense. Whether or not lcc-win conforms to C90 is potentially of
interest to the entire C community, and it perfectly appropriate to
post statements about its conformance in this newsgroup. Furthermore,
I for one am pleased to see that lcc-win is moving in the direction of
greater conformance, and doubly pleased to see a statement of
lcc-win's C90 conformance. I would think anyone in the comp.lang.c
community would be pleased by these events, or at least not be
discouraging about them transpiring.
Keith Thompson
When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
He never answered.
Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
Keith Thompson
I think you're reading things into what James wrote that aren't
necessarily there.
Speaking only for myself (but I suspect others will agree with
me):
I have no objection to jacob's announcement; I think it was perfectly
appropriate to post it here. I have not discouraged jacob from
making and releasing a C90-compliant version of lcc-win, and I don't
believe anyone else has either. I'm not *greatly* pleased by it,
but only because I don't do Windows programming and I therefore
don't have much personal use for lcc-win; that's not a criticism,
and I imagine it's good news for Windows developers.
The only issue I have (and it's a minor one) is that jacob has said
that he made this release "Due to popular demand". That may well
be true, but I've seen no such demand here in comp.lang.c (or in
comp.compilers.lcc, which I also read regularly).
It is true that Richard Heathfield repeatedly stated (prior to
jacob's announcement) that lcc-win did not conform to the C90
standard. It is also true that Richard did not suggest that lcc-win
*should* conform to the C90 standard -- or that it should not.
jacob may or may not have misunderstood Richard's intent.
Tim Rentsch
> "Malcolm McLean" <regn...@btinternet.com> writes:
>> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>> I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
>>> // comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
>>> Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
>>> of fact.
>>>
>> Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his pomposity of
>> style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request for modification.
>> Rather it is a statement of fact.
>>
>> True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it that way?
>
> It is not a statement of fact.
>
> First, I dispute the accuracy of the phrase "widely hated".
> There are some people who dislike him, but I believe there are more
> who do not. I don't know that anyone actually hates him, though
> perhaps there are some who do. We could have a lengthy argument
> about the exact meanings of "widely" and "hated", and it would never
> reach any meaningful conclusion, so let's not. The phrase is vague,
> and to my understanding of its meaning, it is false.
>
> Second, "pomposity of style" is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
> I do not dispute that some people find his style pompous, but again,
> there is no object standard for pomposity.
I think you've missed Malcolm's point. Even if his statement is
expressed in subjective language, the basic point he's making is
one most readers would agree with: many posters in the newsgroup
have expressed negative comments about RH's postings, often
making references to "style". The observation that most people
agree with it (ie, agree with the statement that other people
have made such postings, not that they agree or disagree with the
statements in the postings themselves) makes it a fact. It isn't
a scientifically verifiable fact like measuring the mass of the
Earth, but it's still a fact, "something known to exist or to
have happened".
The point, if I may offer one, is just because a given statement
is a fact doesn't make it either an attack or not an attack. A
statement may be perceived as an attack, whether it was intended
as one or not. The question of whether or not RH's earlier
statements were attacks is /not/ a matter of fact, because there
are obviously different opinions about whether they were.
> [snip]
>
> So how are your remarks relevant to this discussion?
Any comments intended to help improve the flow of communication,
and I believe Malcolm's comments were so intended, are relevant
to a discussion in that they might help the discussion succeed
at its goal.
Keith Thompson
Sure, if you water down Malcolm's statement enough, you can arrive
at something that is true and/or inoffensive. Such as, for example,
"I like cheese."
Malcolm did not say that "many posters in the newsgroup have
expressed negative comments about RH's postings", he said that RH is
"widely hated", which is a *very* different thing. And he didn't
say that it's because of their perception of his style; he said
"because of his pomposity of style". As I read it, Malcolm's
statement presumed, as a fact, that RH's style is pompous.
(If that's not what Malcolm meant, he's welcome to clarify it.)
If I've missed Malcolm's point, it's because (in my opinion) he
expressed it very badly.
(Incidentally, I don't find RH's posting style to be particularly
pompous, and I've seldom seen any non-troll say that it is pompous.)
> The point, if I may offer one, is just because a given statement
> is a fact doesn't make it either an attack or not an attack. A
> statement may be perceived as an attack, whether it was intended
> as one or not. The question of whether or not RH's earlier
> statements were attacks is /not/ a matter of fact, because there
> are obviously different opinions about whether they were.
Yes, there are different opinions. There are certainly some
statements that RH has made that I would call strong criticisms of
lcc-win and/or of jacob navia; if you want to call them attacks,
I won't dispute it. But his statements that lcc-win did not
conform to C90 were, as I recall, made only in the context of a
discussion of whether or not lcc-win is a conforming C compiler.
If he or anyone else had said that lcc-win *did* conform to C90,
that would have been a false statement.
So what's the problem?
>> [snip]
>>
>> So how are your remarks relevant to this discussion?
>
> Any comments intended to help improve the flow of communication,
> and I believe Malcolm's comments were so intended, are relevant
> to a discussion in that they might help the discussion succeed
> at its goal.
I don't know what Malcolm intended. My best guess, based on what
he actually wrote, is that he intended to be inflammatory. Again,
he's more than welcome to clarify.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> (Incidentally, I don't find RH's posting style to be particularly
> pompous,
Neither do I, but I can see why some might think so. My dictionary
gives two senses of "pompous", one of which is "inappropriately grand
and flowery; pretentious". There is a considerable body of evidence
to suggest that there are those who consider a Usenet article with
correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to be inappropriately
grand and flowery.
ObTopic: I consider conformance to be a Boolean property. Either an
implementation conforms to the Standard or it doesn't. Nevertheless,
I certainly recognise that one might argue for conformance being a
scalar quantity, such that one implementation X can be "more
conforming" than another implementation Y, even if X has conformance
issues. Views?
Seebs
> ObTopic: I consider conformance to be a Boolean property. Either an
> implementation conforms to the Standard or it doesn't. Nevertheless,
> I certainly recognise that one might argue for conformance being a
> scalar quantity, such that one implementation X can be "more
> conforming" than another implementation Y, even if X has conformance
> issues. Views?
It had better not be a boolean, because if it is, there are no conforming
implementations.
One useful distinction might be to distinguish between bugs and
intended implementation. We might conclude that there exist implementations
which conform (except for any bugs) and can be distinguished from
implementations where the implementors specifically decided not to conform
with some aspect of the spec.
It's not a C example, but consider the behavior of some GNU utilities and
the "POSIXLY_CORRECT" environment variable; if it's set, they conform with
the spec even when the spec appears to be misguided or stupid. (I am not
a huge fan of this choice, but there are some cases where I will at least
go so far as to say "the world would have been a better place if POSIX
had made a different choice here".)
That said, even if we look at design, I'm not totally sure that any
implementation is *perfectly* conforming. I'm also not sure I care.
By and large, I generally find that once you get to the point that a
few million lines of arbitrary open source software build, I am much
more concerned with other quality-of-implementation issues than I
am with conformance. (As a side note, I also find that, in general, I
am extremely unlikely to care about or object to a non-conformance with
the C spec when it aligns with POSIX instead; in practice, 99% of my
code is built for Unix-like systems only, and I have little to no reason
to want it more portable right now.)
So I definitely view it as a sliding scale. In practice, gcc's c99 is
good enough for me -- I can use compound literals, mixed declarations
and code, inline specifiers, and VLAs. So far, in practice, that's been
enough for me, and has been extremely useful.
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Keith Thompson
[...]
> ObTopic: I consider conformance to be a Boolean property. Either an
> implementation conforms to the Standard or it doesn't. Nevertheless,
> I certainly recognise that one might argue for conformance being a
> scalar quantity, such that one implementation X can be "more
> conforming" than another implementation Y, even if X has conformance
> issues. Views?
I would probably express the latter as "Implementation X is more
nearly conforming than implementation Y".
I also tend to think that minor bugs do not prevent an implementation
from being conforming, or at least reasonably conforming, whereas
features that have not yet been implemented do. This is not an
entirely consistent position, since in some cases the behavior is
indistinguishable. But any piece of software as big as a compiler
will almost certainly have some bugs, so the alternative is to say
that there are no conforming compilers.
Given the lack of a formal definition for the language, it's a little
difficult to say that conformance is absolutely a Boolean property.
Nevertheless, I often think of it that way.
Phil Carmody
> In <lnbpkqm...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
> ObTopic: I consider conformance to be a Boolean property. Either an
> implementation conforms to the Standard or it doesn't. Nevertheless,
> I certainly recognise that one might argue for conformance being a
> scalar quantity, such that one implementation X can be "more
> conforming" than another implementation Y, even if X has conformance
> issues. Views?
It's the complement of non-conformance, which is definitely a real
number. However, evaluation of the non-conformance is performed
in fixed-length floating point. The lucky few get below epsilon.
The non-conformance of the only C compiler I've written doesn't
fit in single-precision floats, for example. Mostly because it
was actually an assembler for a bizarre architecture.
(Having said that, I did write a perl script which turned something
superficially very C-like into something disgustingly BASIC-like,
that probably has a float-representable non-conformance whose 1s-bit
isn't known.)
Phil
--
Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
bartc
> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
> He never answered.
>
> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
> affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
> too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
>
> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
I'd suggest he got fed up with people always bringing up this one niggling
detail of // comments in his compiler, ignoring everything else, and this
was just to shut them up. Which didn't work because now everyone is
questioning his motives...
(Although I don't know why it would have been such a big deal to control //
comments in his main compiler instead of having to provide an entirely
different compiler to achieve this...)
--
Bartc
jacob navia
>
> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
> news:lnk4zen...@nuthaus.mib.org...
>
>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
>> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
>> He never answered.
>>
>> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
>> affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
>> too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
>>
>> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
>
> I'd suggest he got fed up with people always bringing up this one
> niggling detail of // comments in his compiler, ignoring everything
> else, and this was just to shut them up. Which didn't work because now
> everyone is questioning his motives...
I can't do anything here without some guy complaining. If I do not have
an ansi C90 version I do not conform to any standard.
If I do develop an ansic 90 conforming version then I have "ulterior motives"
and I do it because I am bad anyway...
There is NO WAY I can do something correct here. At least heathfield himself
hasn't complained, but other people have.
>
> (Although I don't know why it would have been such a big deal to control
> // comments in his main compiler instead of having to provide an
> entirely different compiler to achieve this...)
>
Because it is not just // comments. It is also the ansic 90 standard
library, the ansic 90 syntax, rejecting all C99 features, etc...
The version I have now has a C90 library and a C90 compiler and a C90
linker!
But let's close this... Instead of discussing here I would be much
more thankful if anybody actually TESTED the presented version and
would tell me if anything is wrong.
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I do not have ansic90 compliant headers... If you find some
old ones please tell me.
Richard Heathfield
>
> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
> news:lnk4zen...@nuthaus.mib.org...
>
>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
>> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
>> He never answered.
>>
>> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
>> affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
>> too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
>>
>> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
>
> I'd suggest he got fed up with people always bringing up this one
> niggling detail of // comments in his compiler, ignoring everything
> else, and this was just to shut them up. Which didn't work because
> now everyone is questioning his motives...
For "people", read "TeaPot". As for motives, who cares? Either
lcc-win32 conforms or it doesn't. Apparently it doesn't. It would be
useful to have a definitive list of ways in which it is known not to
conform (GNU provides such a list for gcc, so there is precedent). It
would also be useful to have conformance issue lists for other
implementations - Borland, MS, Intel, IBM, and the rest.
> (Although I don't know why it would have been such a big deal to
> control // comments in his main compiler instead of having to
> provide an entirely different compiler to achieve this...)
Well, I guess that depends on the cleanliness of the design.
Richard Heathfield
> bartc a �crit :
>>
>> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
>> news:lnk4zen...@nuthaus.mib.org...
>>
>>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
>>> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
>>> He never answered.
>>>
>>> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer
>>> doesn't affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry
>>> about it too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he
>>> meant.
>>>
>>> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
>>
>> I'd suggest he got fed up with people always bringing up this one
>> niggling detail of // comments in his compiler, ignoring everything
>> else, and this was just to shut them up. Which didn't work because
>> now everyone is questioning his motives...
>
> I can't do anything here without some guy complaining.
Right. This is Usenet. Complaining is part of its soul.
> If I do not have an ansi C90 version I do not conform to any
> standard.
Well, that's right, isn't it? If your C99 version is non-conforming
and your C90 version is non-conforming, you don't conform to any
standard. Nobody is saying you must conform, by the way. You do what
you like.
> If I do develop an ansic 90 conforming version then I have "ulterior
> motives" and I do it because I am bad anyway...
Anyone who suggests that is just stupid, so pay them no attention.
> There is NO WAY I can do something correct here. At least heathfield
> himself hasn't complained, but other people have.
Personally I think your attempt to provide a C90-conforming version
was laudable. You seem to think I'm "out to get you". I'm not, and
never have been. When you do stuff that I think is right, I'll
generally say so (or shut up completely, since "<aol>I agree</aol>"
is so 1990s). I only complain, as you put it, when I think you're
getting stuff wrong.
<snip>
bartc
"jacob navia" <ja...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:ha4lom$dbc$1...@aioe.org...
> bartc a �crit :
>> (Although I don't know why it would have been such a big deal to control
>> // comments in his main compiler instead of having to provide an entirely
>> different compiler to achieve this...)
>>
> Because it is not just // comments. It is also the ansic 90 standard
> library, the ansic 90 syntax, rejecting all C99 features, etc...
>
> The version I have now has a C90 library and a C90 compiler and a C90
> linker!
I remember you used a different executable for C90.
It might be sweeter though if a -C90 switch on the main compiler could
automatically invoke the C90 one?
(But don't do anything just for my benefit because I'm entirely unbothered
by the C90/C99 issue.)
--
Bart
jm l
> P.S. I do not have ansic90 compliant headers... If you find some
> old ones please tell me.
The pdpclib is a Public Domain C90 standard library (and headers) :
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdos/files/
It is real Public Domain. (Not GPL, MIT, BSD license).
jameskuyper
> >> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> >> standard" because I failed to reject // comments.
> >
> > True. But that was simply a statement of fact, not a request "that lcc-
> > win32 be made to conform with C90". I don't believe that anyone other
> > than one nutcase has ever given you such a request. Whether or not
> > your compiler should conform with C is purely your own concern.
>
> Nonsense. Whether or not lcc-win conforms to C90 is potentially of
> interest to the entire C community,
You misunderstand me - I meant only that whether or not lcc-win should
conform to C90 is a decision that jacob is perfectly free to make for
himself. If his target customer base wants it, that's certainly a
strong incentive to provide it, but it's also an incentive he can
ignore if he chooses. I wouldn't recommend that he pay any attention
to Mr. Teapot's requests; because that guy's just a heckler - and I'm
not aware of any one else here requesting C90 conformance for lcc-win.
If there has indeed been "popular demand" for such a change, it must
have occurred outside of this newsgroup.
However, since you bring up the topic, I do not agree that the fact
that a compiler has achieved full C90 conformance is of significant
interest, not when it targets a platform for which there are already
several fully conforming implementations, not unless there's something
unusually good about that compiler. C99 conformance of lcc-win32 is a
much more newsworthy event.
> lcc-win's C90 conformance. I would think anyone in the comp.lang.c
> community would be pleased by these events, or at least not be
> discouraging about them transpiring.
I don't want to discourage such developments, though I think his time
would have been better spent adding an optional full-conformance mode
to the current version of the compiler, rather than to an old version
of it. Presumably the newest version has some improvements over the
older one. Many of those improvements are, like support for //
comments, incompatible with full C90 conformance. However, I would
gues that at least a few of his improvements would be fully C90
compatible, if only as conforming extensions, and it would have been
better if his fully-C90 compatible compiler had the benefits of those
improvements.
Even better would have been to improve the C99 conformance of his
current version. The thing that worries me is that he may have wasted
his time on C90 conformance because he mispercieved comments about the
non-conformance of his compiler as requests that it be made
conforming; the comment of his quoted above strongly supports that
suspicion.
Keith Thompson
> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
> news:lnk4zen...@nuthaus.mib.org...
>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
>> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
>> He never answered.
>>
>> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
>> affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
>> too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
>>
>> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
>
> I'd suggest he got fed up with people always bringing up this one
> niggling detail of // comments in his compiler, ignoring everything
> else, and this was just to shut them up. Which didn't work because now
> everyone is questioning his motives...
Why is it that, every time I try to ask jacob this simple question,
other people feel the need to jump in and speculate about his
motivations?
I'm interested in what jacob has to say in answer to my question,
not in what you *think* he might say.
But it doesn't look like jacob is going to answer anyway, so I'll
just give up.
James Kuyper
> "bartc" <ba...@freeuk.com> writes:
>> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
>> news:lnk4zen...@nuthaus.mib.org...
>>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
>>> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
>>> He never answered.
>>>
>>> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
>>> affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
>>> too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
>>>
>>> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
> Why is it that, every time I try to ask jacob this simple question,
> other people feel the need to jump in and speculate about his
> motivations?
Because jacob doesn't bother responding, leaving others free to
speculate. Why doesn't he bother responding? That would be speculation.
jacob navia
Well, I did answer in this thread. See my reply to Seeb.
Please, let's stop this eternal polemics. It would be better
if somebody actually used the proposed version...
Thanks.
Keith Thompson
jacob posted a followup less than an hour after bartc's post.
Keith Thompson
> James Kuyper a écrit :
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> "bartc" <ba...@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:lnk4zen...@nuthaus.mib.org...
>>>>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>>>>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
>>>>> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
>>>>> He never answered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
>>>>> affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
>>>>> too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
>> ...
>>> Why is it that, every time I try to ask jacob this simple question,
>>> other people feel the need to jump in and speculate about his
>>> motivations?
>>
>> Because jacob doesn't bother responding, leaving others free to
>> speculate. Why doesn't he bother responding? That would be
>> speculation.
>
> Well, I did answer in this thread. See my reply to Seeb.
I've looked through this entire thread in groups.google.com (74
articles as of a few minutes ago). I don't see any reply by you
to Seeb, nor do I see a direct answer to my question. Can you
give me a pointer to the article to which you're referring?
> Please, let's stop this eternal polemics. It would be better
> if somebody actually used the proposed version...
I don't currently have a system on which I can install it.
James Kuyper
> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> "bartc" <ba...@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:lnk4zen...@nuthaus.mib.org...
>>>>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>>>>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". I asked him,
>>>>> just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" he was referring to.
>>>>> He never answered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course he's under no obligation to do so, and the answer doesn't
>>>>> affect me one way or the other, so I'm not going to worry about it
>>>>> too much -- but I'm still idly curious about just what he meant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll keep any speculation to myself until he answers.
>> ...
>>> Why is it that, every time I try to ask jacob this simple question,
>>> other people feel the need to jump in and speculate about his
>>> motivations?
>> Because jacob doesn't bother responding, leaving others free to
I should, more precisely, have written that Jacod has not bothered
answering your question. A response that is not an answer wouldn't matter.
>> speculate. Why doesn't he bother responding? That would be speculation.
>
> jacob posted a followup less than an hour after bartc's post.
I can't actually see his responses on my usual newsreader, because I've
set it to filter them out; I took your comments as implying that he
still had not answered your question, just as you explicitly said in
your earlier message.
I just used Google Groups to check. It shows no direct response by jacob
to your message. The closest it comes is his response to bartc's
response to your message. I don't see any answer from him to your
question; not in that message, nor in any other message he's posted on
this thread.
I also see that he claims to have answered your question in this thread
in his reply to a message by Seebs. Google groups displays no message in
this thread which is a reply by jacob to a message from Seebs. Google
Groups doesn't show a single message from jacob on this newsgroup
containing either the word "popular" or "demand", since the one on
2009-09-24 in which he cited "popular demand" as the reason for the release.
The Google Groups search engine is rather flaky though, so he might be
right - but I can't find the message.
Tim Rentsch
> Tim Rentsch <t...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.W...@cwi.nl> writes:
>>> In article <h9hqti$jur$1...@aioe.org> j...@nospam.org writes:
>>> > Richard Heathfield a @C3{A9}crit :
>>> > > There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
>>> > > is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
>>> > > made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
>>> > > remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
>>> > > brain takes him seriously.
>>> >
>>> > Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
>>> > standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
>>> > a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
>>>
>>> You are confusing "stating that a compiler does not conform to some
>>> standard" with "request to make the compiler conform to some standard".
>>
>> You're reading something into the posting that it doesn't say.
>> It may be that Jacob took Richard's statement as a request, and
>> it may be that he didn't, but certainly his posting doesn't say
>> that he took it as a request. So it isn't clear just who is
>> confused in this instance.
>
> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". [snip]
I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a statement
that lcc-win doesn't conform as an indication that
there is some desire that it conform. I think I
would take it that way if I were in his shoes. That
doesn't mean the earlier statement was taken as
a request.
Tim Rentsch
I was responding principally to James's last sentence, "Whether
or not your compiler should conform with C is purely your own
concern." I'm concerned with whether lcc-win conforms; I
think it should, because I believe it benefits the C community
if it does. I expect other people here share this interest
and belief, and wanted to express encouragement after the
disclosure -- that's really all I was trying to say. I
wasn't meaning to give a response directed solely or
even principally at James.
Tim Rentsch
That's not how I took it. I took it as restating the views
expressed by people who have posted negative opinions, not as his
own opinion.
> If I've missed Malcolm's point, it's because (in my opinion) he
> expressed it very badly.
It was deliberately written in inflammatory language, and perhaps
deliberately poor expression as well. I took that as satire, and
as a means of underscoring the point he was making. A more
watered down version wouldn't have made the point as strongly.
(Whether that would have been better or worse is another
question, but the point wouldn't be as strong.)
> (Incidentally, I don't find RH's posting style to be particularly
> pompous, and I've seldom seen any non-troll say that it is pompous.)
Yes, that's part of why I thought Malcolm wasn't expressing it as
something he believed, because it's not a fact -- obviously
different people hold different opinions on this question.
>> The point, if I may offer one, is just because a given statement
>> is a fact doesn't make it either an attack or not an attack. A
>> statement may be perceived as an attack, whether it was intended
>> as one or not. The question of whether or not RH's earlier
>> statements were attacks is /not/ a matter of fact, because there
>> are obviously different opinions about whether they were.
>
> Yes, there are different opinions. There are certainly some
> statements that RH has made that I would call strong criticisms of
> lcc-win and/or of jacob navia; if you want to call them attacks,
> I won't dispute it.
I think they key point is not whether I would call them attacks
but whether they were perceived by other people (including Jacob)
as attacks.
> But his statements that lcc-win did not
> conform to C90 were, as I recall, made only in the context of a
> discussion of whether or not lcc-win is a conforming C compiler.
> If he or anyone else had said that lcc-win *did* conform to C90,
> that would have been a false statement.
Part of Malcom's point is that just because a statement
is true (or false) doesn't mean it isn't an attack,
or won't be perceived as an attack. The written word
in email or news postings is notorious for inflaming
strong emotional reactions, especially negative ones,
and it's silly to pretend that tendency doesn't exist.
Moreover I think it displays a lack of maturity not
to try to compensate for it.
> So what's the problem?
The problem is there's a noticeable incongruity between the
expressions of some senders and the impressions of some
receivers. It's possible no action will be taken as a
result of this, but as part of making that decision it's
important first to observe that the incongruity exists.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> So how are your remarks relevant to this discussion?
>>
>> Any comments intended to help improve the flow of communication,
>> and I believe Malcolm's comments were so intended, are relevant
>> to a discussion in that they might help the discussion succeed
>> at its goal.
>
> I don't know what Malcolm intended. My best guess, based on what
> he actually wrote, is that he intended to be inflammatory. Again,
> he's more than welcome to clarify.
I think he did intentionally use inflammatory language. I
believe his purpose in doing so was not to inflame but to make
his point more effectively.
Keith Thompson
It's not a reasonable assumption given that Richard has also
repeatedly stated that he was *not* requesting a C90-complaint
version of lcc-win.
Ben Bacarisse
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
<snip>
>> Please, let's stop this eternal polemics. It would be better
>> if somebody actually used the proposed version...
>
> I don't currently have a system on which I can install it.
I am guessing from your newsreader that you do have a Linux system.
lcc-win32 runs fine under wine.
--
Ben.
Keith Thompson
Then I might give it a try, time permitting.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> The written word
> in email or news postings is notorious for inflaming
> strong emotional reactions, especially negative ones,
> and it's silly to pretend that tendency doesn't exist.
> Moreover I think it displays a lack of maturity not
> to try to compensate for it.
On the other hand, I've tried compensating for it, and have discovered
(a) that it doesn't do any good, and (b) the tone normally ends up
sounding rather condescending, which is something I do actually try
to avoid.
Tim Rentsch
> In <lnbpkqm...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> (Incidentally, I don't find RH's posting style to be particularly
>> pompous,
>
> Neither do I, but I can see why some might think so. My dictionary
> gives two senses of "pompous", one of which is "inappropriately grand
> and flowery; pretentious". There is a considerable body of evidence
> to suggest that there are those who consider a Usenet article with
> correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to be inappropriately
> grand and flowery.
There are plenty of other posters who strive to use
correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but whose
postings are not accused of being pompous.
>
> ObTopic: I consider conformance to be a Boolean property. Either an
> implementation conforms to the Standard or it doesn't. Nevertheless,
> I certainly recognise that one might argue for conformance being a
> scalar quantity, such that one implementation X can be "more
> conforming" than another implementation Y, even if X has conformance
> issues. Views?
In the absence of a clearly defined objective test, I don't
think it's useful to measure conformance with a binary
metric. A scalar metric is better, but for comparing
implementations that actually exist it seems better still if
the conformance metric is allowed to be a general lattice.
Implementation A and implementation B might both be "more
conforming" than implementation C, but still be such that
neither A nor B is "more conforming" than the other.
Seebs
> There are plenty of other posters who strive to use
> correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but whose
> postings are not accused of being pompous.
That could be. It doesn't mean that there's anything he could reasonably
do which would "cure" the problem.
People accuse me of all sorts of stuff. Actually, I'm autistic, and my
brain lacks certain "normal" core functionality. Most of the things they
accuse me of, in fact, are not only not accurate, but essentially impossible
for me to accomplish.
I see no obvious reason to believe that Richard Heathfield is doing anything
that justifies the complaints you refer to; rather, I think people are just
expecting him to behave in particular ways without any obvious justification.
Tim Rentsch
> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> jameskuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> > jacob navia wrote:
> ...
>> >> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
>> >> standard" because I failed to reject // comments.
>> >
>> > True. But that was simply a statement of fact, not a request "that lcc-
>> > win32 be made to conform with C90". I don't believe that anyone other
>> > than one nutcase has ever given you such a request. Whether or not
>> > your compiler should conform with C is purely your own concern.
>>
>> Nonsense. Whether or not lcc-win conforms to C90 is potentially of
>> interest to the entire C community,
>
> You misunderstand me - I meant only that whether or not lcc-win should
> conform to C90 is a decision that jacob is perfectly free to make for
> himself.
Yes, I understood your earlier statement to say something
different. But okay.
> If his target customer base wants it, that's certainly a
> strong incentive to provide it, but it's also an incentive he can
> ignore if he chooses. I wouldn't recommend that he pay any attention
> to Mr. Teapot's requests; because that guy's just a heckler - and I'm
> not aware of any one else here requesting C90 conformance for lcc-win.
> If there has indeed been "popular demand" for such a change, it must
> have occurred outside of this newsgroup.
I believe Jacob is right to think that there is interest,
even if there haven't been requests. If he chooses to
phrase that perceived interest as "popular demand,"
well, it might not be phrasing that I'd choose, but
I don't think it's confusing or misleading or especially
less appropriate than lots of other comments made in
other newsgroup postings.
> However, since you bring up the topic, I do not agree that the fact
> that a compiler has achieved full C90 conformance is of significant
> interest, [snip elaboration].
I didn't say significant interest, I said potentially of
interest. Certainly enough to be worth posting.
> C99 conformance of lcc-win32 is a much more newsworthy event.
Absolutely.
>> lcc-win's C90 conformance. I would think anyone in the comp.lang.c
>> community would be pleased by these events, or at least not be
>> discouraging about them transpiring.
>
> I don't want to discourage such developments, though I think his time
> would have been better spent adding an optional full-conformance mode
> to the current version of the compiler, rather than to an old version
> of it. [snip elaboration]
I might agree with that assessment, but I think that it's his
call to make.
> Even better would have been to improve the C99 conformance of his
> current version. The thing that worries me is that he may have wasted
> his time on C90 conformance because he mispercieved comments about the
> non-conformance of his compiler as requests that it be made
> conforming; the comment of his quoted above strongly supports that
> suspicion.
It seems like a better way to channel such a reaction would have
been to respond to his earlier posting with "That's great news,
Jacob. Good job! Are you going to start working now on full C99
and/or C90 conformance for your current compiler?" It's
disappointing that so many people have focused on some negative
aspects rather than emphasizing the positive aspects present
in this event.
Tim Rentsch
> In <kfnfxa1...@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The written word
>> in email or news postings is notorious for inflaming
>> strong emotional reactions, especially negative ones,
>> and it's silly to pretend that tendency doesn't exist.
>> Moreover I think it displays a lack of maturity not
>> to try to compensate for it.
>
> On the other hand, I've tried compensating for it, and have discovered
> (a) that it doesn't do any good, and (b) the tone normally ends up
> sounding rather condescending, which is something I do actually try
> to avoid.
I'm sorry, I should have phrased that better. I
didn't mean to imply that you haven't tried
compensating. My apologies.
Tim Rentsch
Do you think having a desire is synonymous with making a request?
Do you think saying you're not making a request is synonomous
with not having a desire?
Assuming the answer to both of the previous question is "yes",
do you also think everyone else shares your opinion on these
questions?
Tim Rentsch
> On 2009-10-03, Tim Rentsch <t...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> There are plenty of other posters who strive to use
>> correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but whose
>> postings are not accused of being pompous.
>
> That could be. It doesn't mean that there's anything he could reasonably
> do which would "cure" the problem.
Oh, I wasn't trying to say that there is. I was just making
an observation that suggests the proposed explanation might
not be sufficient just by itself.
> People accuse me of all sorts of stuff. Actually, I'm autistic, and my
> brain lacks certain "normal" core functionality. Most of the things they
> accuse me of, in fact, are not only not accurate, but essentially impossible
> for me to accomplish.
That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
about it?
> I see no obvious reason to believe that Richard Heathfield is doing anything
> that justifies the complaints you refer to; rather, I think people are just
> expecting him to behave in particular ways without any obvious justification.
I'm interested in learning what makes the reactions happen.
Part of the reason for that is anthropological curiosity,
and part of it is relating it to my own experiences.
Certainly it's happened to me that some people have reacted
negatively to me for no particular reasons that I can
discern; it would be good to get a better handle on
that, not that it happens all the time but understanding
it better could help a lot in some situations.
Keith Thompson
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <t...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
>>>> When jacob initially announced the C90-compliant version of
>>>> lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand". [snip]
>>>
>>> I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a statement
>>> that lcc-win doesn't conform as an indication that
>>> there is some desire that it conform. I think I
>>> would take it that way if I were in his shoes. That
>>> doesn't mean the earlier statement was taken as
>>> a request.
>>
>> It's not a reasonable assumption given that Richard has also
>> repeatedly stated that he was *not* requesting a C90-complaint
>> version of lcc-win.
>
> Do you think having a desire is synonymous with making a request?
>
> Do you think saying you're not making a request is synonomous
> with not having a desire?
>
> Assuming the answer to both of the previous question is "yes",
> do you also think everyone else shares your opinion on these
> questions?
Who cares?
Richard Heathfield had stated, entirely correctly, that lcc-win32
did not fully conform to C90. I don't believe he ever said or
implied either that he was requesting a C90-conforming version
or that he desired a C90-conforming version. And even if he had,
that would not constitute "popular demand". I find it difficult
to believe that jacob would go to the effort of creating and
releasing a C90-conforming version of lcc-win just because Richard
Heathfield asked for it (and no, nobody has suggested that that's
what happened).
When jacob announced, at the top of this thread, a C90-conforming
version of lcc-win, he said it was "Due to popular demand".
I asked him, just out of curiosity, what he meant by that phrase,
since I had seen no such popular demand here.
jacob is certainly under no obligation to answer my question, and
in fact he has not done so. That's ok; it's not something I need
to know.
And now we have this long thread nitpicking every nuance of every
word.
Can we please go back to talking about C?
Tim Rentsch
I thought it might be helpful if another perspective
were presented; I was just trying to explain that
perspective. Following the response above I'm
willing to let the matter drop.
Seebs
> That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
> Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
> about it?
Not very good ones. There's some decent material in full-length books.
My general preference is to recommend the Elizabeth Moon fiction book
"The Speed of Dark". Read that, and then imagine that the main character
seems *perfectly reasonable* to me. It was really relaxing reading a book
where the character observed events rather than elaborate stories about
the events in which motives were invented from whole cloth. :)
> I'm interested in learning what makes the reactions happen.
> Part of the reason for that is anthropological curiosity,
> and part of it is relating it to my own experiences.
> Certainly it's happened to me that some people have reacted
> negatively to me for no particular reasons that I can
> discern; it would be good to get a better handle on
> that, not that it happens all the time but understanding
> it better could help a lot in some situations.
The biggest underlying thing, I think: In many cultures, there are
many deferential status cues but very few explicit cues for high
status; rather, high status is inferred when you do not emit
deferential cues. People whose brains naturally pick up status cues
are likely to perceive someone who omits them as "arrogant" or "pompous",
but it's extremely hard to emit the right deferential cues in the right
ways so as not to come across as condescending.
I can usually do it, but then, I spent >5 years doing technical support,
and developed a lot of specialized skills from it. :)
Antoninus Twink
> the tone normally ends up sounding rather condescending, which is
> something I do actually try to avoid.
If that's true then I flinch to imagine what it would be like if you
went out of your way to try to be condescending.
You'll be saying next that you try to avoid being arrogant.
Antoninus Twink
> There are plenty of other posters who strive to use correct spelling,
> punctuation, and grammar, but whose postings are not accused of being
> pompous.
EXACTLY.
Antoninus Twink
> Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> writes:
>> People accuse me of all sorts of stuff. Actually, I'm autistic, and
>> my brain lacks certain "normal" core functionality. Most of the
>> things they accuse me of, in fact, are not only not accurate, but
>> essentially impossible for me to accomplish.
>
> That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
> Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
> about it?
Read through some of Keith Thomson's posting history here, and you'll be
able to work out for yourself what it entails.
Note that I don't say this facetiously or as an attack - it's just an
objective fact that Kiki is a perfect textbook illustration of the
effects of autism.
Many programmers are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and there's
nothing wrong with that. However, most of them learn when they're young
to make some compensation for it, and "act along" with "normal social
expectations" even if it doesn't come naturally to them. E.g. they'll
learn to recognize that someone is looking unhappy, and make a point of
asking if they're OK and saying some sympathetic words. For most people,
this is human instinct; for them it's learned behavior; but they realize
at an intellectual level that there are significant advantages to
following that particular behavior.
Keith is interesting because he clearly hasn't tried to fit in like
this.
Nick Keighley
> On 2009-10-03, Tim Rentsch <t...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > That's interesting. I don't really know very much about autism.
> > Do you have any suggestions for good summary articles to read
> > about it?
>
> Not very good ones. There's some decent material in full-length books.
>
> My general preference is to recommend the Elizabeth Moon fiction book
> "The Speed of Dark". Read that, and then imagine that the main character
> seems *perfectly reasonable* to me. It was really relaxing reading a book
> where the character observed events rather than elaborate stories about
> the events in which motives were invented from whole cloth. :)
is this any good?
www.amazon.com/Curious-Incident-Dog-Night-Time/dp/1400032717
Seebs
> Many programmers are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and there's
> nothing wrong with that. However, most of them learn when they're young
> to make some compensation for it, and "act along" with "normal social
> expectations" even if it doesn't come naturally to them. E.g. they'll
> learn to recognize that someone is looking unhappy, and make a point of
> asking if they're OK and saying some sympathetic words. For most people,
> this is human instinct; for them it's learned behavior; but they realize
> at an intellectual level that there are significant advantages to
> following that particular behavior.
Yup. But sometimes they continue to disregard the rules which *aren't*
useful.
> Keith is interesting because he clearly hasn't tried to fit in like
> this.
Or hasn't been successful by some peoples' standards, and has by others.
I'd regard him as courteous and helpful. I'd say you are much further
from healthy social patterns than he is.
Seebs
> is this any good?
> www.amazon.com/Curious-Incident-Dog-Night-Time/dp/1400032717
I found it interesting. Some people disliked it a great deal, but I liked
it.
Malcolm McLean
"Tim Rentsch" <t...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> Part of Malcom's point is that just because a statement
> is true (or false) doesn't mean it isn't an attack,
> or won't be perceived as an attack.
>
> believe his purpose in doing so was not to inflame but to make
> his point more effectively.
>
isn't face to face, so someone can't tell from your tone of voice that you
are teasing.
Richard
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
>> In <lnbpkqm...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> (Incidentally, I don't find RH's posting style to be particularly
>>> pompous,
>>
>> Neither do I, but I can see why some might think so. My dictionary
>> gives two senses of "pompous", one of which is "inappropriately grand
>> and flowery; pretentious". There is a considerable body of evidence
>> to suggest that there are those who consider a Usenet article with
>> correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar to be inappropriately
>> grand and flowery.
>
> There are plenty of other posters who strive to use
> correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but whose
> postings are not accused of being pompous.
There is a difference between the above and being an arrogant arse.