Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
About this newsgroup and netiquette (some factual info)
69 views
Skip to first unread message
Alf P. Steinbach
Mar 18, 2017, 9:07:28 PM3/18/17
to
Usenet, with groups like this one, predates the World Wide Web.
There are well over 120 000 Usenet groups like comp.lang.c++, and they
have a supporting infra-structure that, unfortunately, is in disarray.
The /tone/ in technical Usenet groups used originally to be technical
and with little mercy on those who tried to treat the groups as social
arenas. Courtesy as the default was common, but it was not uncommon to
e.g. respond with just “RTFM”, which means, Read The Fucking Manual, to
an equally rude request for basic information (that's rude because it
asks others to do one's work). M.I.T., the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, still maintains its old RFTM site,
<url: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/>
I think that as a long as M.I.T. maintains a site called Read The
Fucking Manual, as they do, even if the contents are just archaic stale
information, all cannot be lost – there are apparently still folks with
intelligence, direction, and a sense of humor.
• • •
The common rules for behavior in groups is called netiquette.
General netiquette is dicussed in RFC 1855, available at e.g.
<url: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>
An RFC, a “Request For Comments”, is akin to a standard for some aspect
of the Internet. Many RFCs are treated as effectively standards, e.g.
the ones governing e-mail protocols and the like. But the intent was
that the RFCs should evolve, via comments and discussion, into formally
adopted Internet standards, ISs .
Netiquette specifically for this group, comp.lang.c++, was part of the
C++ FAQ Lite maintained by Marhshall Cline via community input, where
the community was comp.lang.c++. That FAQ has since evolved into the C++
Super FAQ maintained by Cline, Stroustrup, Alexandrescu and Sutter, at
<url: https://isocpp.org/faq>, but that version lacks the clc++
netiquette part. The original is however still available from
<url: http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/mirror/c++-faq/how-to-post.html>
and from a host of mirrors, including translations to other languages.
The netiquette part has many individual FAQs (frequently asked
questions), but I reproduce here as particularly relevant, the item
about how to post a question about code that doesn't work:
<FAQ 5.8 question about code that doesn't work>
Key guidelines:
• Post compile'able code: avoid ellipses, such as void f() { ... }
• Post complete code: put in all necessary #includes and declarations of
needed types and functions
• Post minimal code: just enough to demonstrate the problem; skip I/O
and calls to libraries if possible
• Post one compilation unit: if possible, combine Foo.h into Foo.cpp
• Post the tools you used: compiler name, version number, operating
system, etc
• Post the tool options you used: libraries, exact compiler and linker
options, etc
• Post the exact messages you received; differentiate between compiler,
linker, and runtime messages
• Make sure main() has a return type of int, not void!
</FAQ 5.8 question about code that doesn't work>
• • •
Seen through a service like Google Groups the 120 000+ Usenet groups may
appear to be hosted by Google, and may appear to be just like other
Google groups. But a Usenet group isn't hosted on any particular server.
Instead Usenet is based on a distributed model where Usenet servers,
called NNTP servers, forward new postings to each other.
This means that
• A posting does not always appear instantaneously to someone else.
It may have to be forwarded through a lot of servers. Takes time.
• Others may not always have available the preceding postings.
Please quote what's relevant (and only that) of what you respond to.
• Postings can't in practice be deleted.
There is a mechanism for deletion but deletion in a distributed
forwarding system is difficult and error-prone, unreliable.
Postings are archived by various third parties. Originally there was
only one really big archive-it-all archive, called Deja News. That was
bought by Google. Google changed it into Google Groups, which is partly
a web interface to Usenet, and partly a discussion site that includes
non-Usenet Google groups. One can't easily see whether a group is a
Google group, hosted by Google, or a Usenet group, mirrored by Google.
For the Usenet groups it's possible to request, via a message's headers,
that it should not be archived forever, but only a certain short period.
And e.g. Google Groups honors that by deleting the message after the
specified time.
Still, if others quote the message, those quoted parts will live on.
• • •
Usenet groups, but not pure Google groups, can also be accessed via a
/newsreader/ program.
On great advantage of a newsreader is that it typically supports
filtering. That is, you don't need to see, at all, the postings in a
certain thread, or the postings of a certain someone, or the postings
that include certain words; whatever.
I.e., newsreader = more comfort and higher signal/noise ratio.
You need an account at a Usenet server, those servers that propagate
Usenet messages.
Eternal September is one free such server, the one I use.
Mozilla Thunderbird is one free newsreader. The Opera web browser is
another. There is a list in Wikipedia,
<url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Usenet_newsreaders>
• • •
Finally, comp.lang.c++ lacks a /charter/.
Other newsgroups generally did have charters.
The now defunct moderated sister group to this one,
comp.lang.c++.moderated, did have a charter, but googling it I did not
find it. As I recall that charter defined as off-topic postings about
how to use any particular API: a flood of Windows API postings in
comp.lang.c++ was a main reason that the moderated group was created.
The FAQ Lite stated that any posting in comp.lang.c++ should be
answerable with reference only to the official ISO C++ standard.
However, in 2017, with very high traffic not a problem, I think
comp.lang.c++ should be far more inclusive. That's just my personal
opinion, of course, but I state it as possibly a point of discussion.
Cheers!,
- Alf
There are well over 120 000 Usenet groups like comp.lang.c++, and they
have a supporting infra-structure that, unfortunately, is in disarray.
The /tone/ in technical Usenet groups used originally to be technical
and with little mercy on those who tried to treat the groups as social
arenas. Courtesy as the default was common, but it was not uncommon to
e.g. respond with just “RTFM”, which means, Read The Fucking Manual, to
an equally rude request for basic information (that's rude because it
asks others to do one's work). M.I.T., the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, still maintains its old RFTM site,
<url: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/>
I think that as a long as M.I.T. maintains a site called Read The
Fucking Manual, as they do, even if the contents are just archaic stale
information, all cannot be lost – there are apparently still folks with
intelligence, direction, and a sense of humor.
• • •
The common rules for behavior in groups is called netiquette.
General netiquette is dicussed in RFC 1855, available at e.g.
<url: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>
An RFC, a “Request For Comments”, is akin to a standard for some aspect
of the Internet. Many RFCs are treated as effectively standards, e.g.
the ones governing e-mail protocols and the like. But the intent was
that the RFCs should evolve, via comments and discussion, into formally
adopted Internet standards, ISs .
Netiquette specifically for this group, comp.lang.c++, was part of the
C++ FAQ Lite maintained by Marhshall Cline via community input, where
the community was comp.lang.c++. That FAQ has since evolved into the C++
Super FAQ maintained by Cline, Stroustrup, Alexandrescu and Sutter, at
<url: https://isocpp.org/faq>, but that version lacks the clc++
netiquette part. The original is however still available from
<url: http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/mirror/c++-faq/how-to-post.html>
and from a host of mirrors, including translations to other languages.
The netiquette part has many individual FAQs (frequently asked
questions), but I reproduce here as particularly relevant, the item
about how to post a question about code that doesn't work:
<FAQ 5.8 question about code that doesn't work>
Key guidelines:
• Post compile'able code: avoid ellipses, such as void f() { ... }
• Post complete code: put in all necessary #includes and declarations of
needed types and functions
• Post minimal code: just enough to demonstrate the problem; skip I/O
and calls to libraries if possible
• Post one compilation unit: if possible, combine Foo.h into Foo.cpp
• Post the tools you used: compiler name, version number, operating
system, etc
• Post the tool options you used: libraries, exact compiler and linker
options, etc
• Post the exact messages you received; differentiate between compiler,
linker, and runtime messages
• Make sure main() has a return type of int, not void!
</FAQ 5.8 question about code that doesn't work>
• • •
Seen through a service like Google Groups the 120 000+ Usenet groups may
appear to be hosted by Google, and may appear to be just like other
Google groups. But a Usenet group isn't hosted on any particular server.
Instead Usenet is based on a distributed model where Usenet servers,
called NNTP servers, forward new postings to each other.
This means that
• A posting does not always appear instantaneously to someone else.
It may have to be forwarded through a lot of servers. Takes time.
• Others may not always have available the preceding postings.
Please quote what's relevant (and only that) of what you respond to.
• Postings can't in practice be deleted.
There is a mechanism for deletion but deletion in a distributed
forwarding system is difficult and error-prone, unreliable.
Postings are archived by various third parties. Originally there was
only one really big archive-it-all archive, called Deja News. That was
bought by Google. Google changed it into Google Groups, which is partly
a web interface to Usenet, and partly a discussion site that includes
non-Usenet Google groups. One can't easily see whether a group is a
Google group, hosted by Google, or a Usenet group, mirrored by Google.
For the Usenet groups it's possible to request, via a message's headers,
that it should not be archived forever, but only a certain short period.
And e.g. Google Groups honors that by deleting the message after the
specified time.
Still, if others quote the message, those quoted parts will live on.
• • •
Usenet groups, but not pure Google groups, can also be accessed via a
/newsreader/ program.
On great advantage of a newsreader is that it typically supports
filtering. That is, you don't need to see, at all, the postings in a
certain thread, or the postings of a certain someone, or the postings
that include certain words; whatever.
I.e., newsreader = more comfort and higher signal/noise ratio.
You need an account at a Usenet server, those servers that propagate
Usenet messages.
Eternal September is one free such server, the one I use.
Mozilla Thunderbird is one free newsreader. The Opera web browser is
another. There is a list in Wikipedia,
<url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Usenet_newsreaders>
• • •
Finally, comp.lang.c++ lacks a /charter/.
Other newsgroups generally did have charters.
The now defunct moderated sister group to this one,
comp.lang.c++.moderated, did have a charter, but googling it I did not
find it. As I recall that charter defined as off-topic postings about
how to use any particular API: a flood of Windows API postings in
comp.lang.c++ was a main reason that the moderated group was created.
The FAQ Lite stated that any posting in comp.lang.c++ should be
answerable with reference only to the official ISO C++ standard.
However, in 2017, with very high traffic not a problem, I think
comp.lang.c++ should be far more inclusive. That's just my personal
opinion, of course, but I state it as possibly a point of discussion.
Cheers!,
- Alf
Juha Nieminen
Mar 20, 2017, 4:04:08 AM3/20/17
to
Alf P. Steinbach <alf.p.stein...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ??? Post compile'able code: avoid ellipses, such as void f() { ... }
> ??? Post complete code: put in all necessary #includes and declarations of
> needed types and functions
> ??? Post minimal code: just enough to demonstrate the problem; skip I/O
> ??? Post the tools you used: compiler name, version number, operating
> system, etc
> ??? Post the tool options you used: libraries, exact compiler and linker
> options, etc
> ??? Post the exact messages you received; differentiate between compiler,
> linker, and runtime messages
> ??? Make sure main() has a return type of int, not void!
If the implementation of some example function is completely irrelevant
to the question at hand, then it can very well be left empty. (Sure, it
may be better to just declare the function rather than define it with a
"..." implementation, but complaining about it would be really nitpicky.)
In simple examples, standard #include lines aren't really needed.
If the question relates to standard C++, posting the version number of a
compiler is completely irrelevant.
And so on.
> ??? Post compile'able code: avoid ellipses, such as void f() { ... }
> ??? Post complete code: put in all necessary #includes and declarations of
> needed types and functions
> ??? Post minimal code: just enough to demonstrate the problem; skip I/O
> and calls to libraries if possible
> ??? Post one compilation unit: if possible, combine Foo.h into Foo.cpp
> ??? Post the tools you used: compiler name, version number, operating
> system, etc
> ??? Post the tool options you used: libraries, exact compiler and linker
> options, etc
> ??? Post the exact messages you received; differentiate between compiler,
> linker, and runtime messages
> ??? Make sure main() has a return type of int, not void!
> </FAQ 5.8 question about code that doesn't work>
Most of those are really nitpicky.
If the implementation of some example function is completely irrelevant
to the question at hand, then it can very well be left empty. (Sure, it
may be better to just declare the function rather than define it with a
"..." implementation, but complaining about it would be really nitpicky.)
In simple examples, standard #include lines aren't really needed.
If the question relates to standard C++, posting the version number of a
compiler is completely irrelevant.
And so on.
K. Frank
Mar 20, 2017, 8:10:33 AM3/20/17
to
Hello Alf and Group!
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 9:07:28 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> Usenet, with groups like this one, predates the World Wide Web.
> ...
ebbs and flows over time. We seem to be at a relative
low point (due, I think, both to decreased signal -- maybe
because of other discussion forums -- and, for whatever
reason, to increased noise).
Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
> The FAQ Lite stated that any posting in comp.lang.c++ should be
> answerable with reference only to the official ISO C++ standard.
>
> However, in 2017, with very high traffic not a problem, I think
> comp.lang.c++ should be far more inclusive. That's just my personal
> opinion, of course, but I state it as possibly a point of discussion.
Whether comp.lang.c++ or comp.lang.c++.moderated, I agree
that "legitimate" topics for c++ discussion could go beyond
the narrow criterion you quoted from the FAQ Lite.
> Cheers!,
>
> - Alf
Happy Posting!
K. Frank
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 9:07:28 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> Usenet, with groups like this one, predates the World Wide Web.
> The now defunct moderated sister group to this one,
> comp.lang.c++.moderated, did have a charter, but googling it I did not
> find it. As I recall that charter defined as off-topic postings about
> how to use any particular API: a flood of Windows API postings in
> comp.lang.c++ was a main reason that the moderated group was created.
The signal-to-noise ratio of this group (comp.lang.c++)
> comp.lang.c++.moderated, did have a charter, but googling it I did not
> find it. As I recall that charter defined as off-topic postings about
> how to use any particular API: a flood of Windows API postings in
> comp.lang.c++ was a main reason that the moderated group was created.
ebbs and flows over time. We seem to be at a relative
low point (due, I think, both to decreased signal -- maybe
because of other discussion forums -- and, for whatever
reason, to increased noise).
Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
> The FAQ Lite stated that any posting in comp.lang.c++ should be
> answerable with reference only to the official ISO C++ standard.
>
> However, in 2017, with very high traffic not a problem, I think
> comp.lang.c++ should be far more inclusive. That's just my personal
> opinion, of course, but I state it as possibly a point of discussion.
that "legitimate" topics for c++ discussion could go beyond
the narrow criterion you quoted from the FAQ Lite.
> Cheers!,
>
> - Alf
Happy Posting!
K. Frank
bitrex
Mar 20, 2017, 10:47:02 AM3/20/17
to
On 03/20/2017 08:10 AM, K. Frank wrote:
> The signal-to-noise ratio of this group (comp.lang.c++)
> ebbs and flows over time. We seem to be at a relative
> low point (due, I think, both to decreased signal -- maybe
> because of other discussion forums -- and, for whatever
> reason, to increased noise).
I think a lot of people went to sites like Stack Overflow, and for a
> The signal-to-noise ratio of this group (comp.lang.c++)
> ebbs and flows over time. We seem to be at a relative
> low point (due, I think, both to decreased signal -- maybe
> because of other discussion forums -- and, for whatever
> reason, to increased noise).
time, things were good.
Then the inmates took over the asylum, and it seemed to decide its
mission was not to be a Q&A site for programming questions, but a
repository of all "common programming questions" to be guarded and
maintained such that any Google search on say "what's a smart pointer
for" would bring it up in the top list of hits.
And the team of moderators and "power users" is such that trying to turn
the clock back on it is just too painful. It's near impossible to ask
even a well-thought-out question without someone or other on the
high-rep crew showing up to get their shot in: "why would you do this",
"if anyone wrote this kind of code at my place there'd be hell to pay",
and other forms of essentially "u suck at teh codez" "answers."
> Happy Posting!
>
>
> K. Frank
>
bitrex
Mar 20, 2017, 10:54:44 AM3/20/17
to
"reputation" and "badges" and "status", it seems not big surprise that
those who drift to the top of the system are likely to be simply the
most status-obsessed who find effective ways to game that system, not
necessarily those who provide the most valuable contributions. ;-)
Alf P. Steinbach
Mar 20, 2017, 12:17:44 PM3/20/17
to
usually the last competent to decide what to leave out.
Cheers!,
- Alf
woodb...@gmail.com
Mar 20, 2017, 12:20:13 PM3/20/17
to
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-5, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
Please don't swear here.
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
Please don't swear here.
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
Richard
Mar 20, 2017, 12:27:26 PM3/20/17
to
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
"K. Frank" <kfran...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
<218a6b8e-cd6c-4570...@googlegroups.com> thusly:
>Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
>companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
+1
I just had to add another idiot to my KILL file this morning. 88
unread messages when I started and over 50% were ditched by filtering.
I'd join a group of moderators for such a group as long as I didn't
have to do it alone.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
"K. Frank" <kfran...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
<218a6b8e-cd6c-4570...@googlegroups.com> thusly:
>Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
>companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
I just had to add another idiot to my KILL file this morning. 88
unread messages when I started and over 50% were ditched by filtering.
I'd join a group of moderators for such a group as long as I didn't
have to do it alone.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
Daniel
Mar 20, 2017, 12:41:07 PM3/20/17
to
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:10:33 AM UTC-4, K. Frank wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
> companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
>
+1
>
> Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
> companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
>
Mr Flibble
Mar 20, 2017, 1:21:25 PM3/20/17
to
On 20/03/2017 16:20, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-5, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
> Please don't swear here.
Fuck. Off. You. Cunt.
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-5, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
> Please don't swear here.
/Flibble
fir
Mar 20, 2017, 3:25:41 PM3/20/17
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 20 marca 2017 17:27:26 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard napisał:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> "K. Frank" <kfran...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
> <218a6b8e-cd6c-4570...@googlegroups.com> thusly:
>
> >Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
> >companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
>
> +1
>
> I just had to add another idiot to my KILL file this morning. 88
> unread messages when I started and over 50% were ditched by filtering.
>
> I'd join a group of moderators for such a group as long as I didn't
> have to do it alone.
the view that commes to mind is 'primiticves forming a queue to moderate some brighter people able to point out their stupidity' (and this is ALWAYS the case, not not virtual this is always the EXISTING case - in any moderated forum that exist in the world, i belive (even when i was a moderator (as i am on some places) i got tendency to disrespect some other 'standpoints' than my
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> "K. Frank" <kfran...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
> <218a6b8e-cd6c-4570...@googlegroups.com> thusly:
>
> >Would it make sense to consider rejuvenating the former
> >companion group, comp.lang.c++.moderated?
>
> +1
>
> I just had to add another idiot to my KILL file this morning. 88
> unread messages when I started and over 50% were ditched by filtering.
>
> I'd join a group of moderators for such a group as long as I didn't
> have to do it alone.
own ) [some solutions could be wourk out however, but at this moment i (personally) dont care )
Chris M. Thomasson
Mar 20, 2017, 4:51:39 PM3/20/17
to
On 3/20/2017 5:10 AM, K. Frank wrote:
> Hello Alf and Group!
>
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 9:07:28 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> Usenet, with groups like this one, predates the World Wide Web.
>> ...
>> The now defunct moderated sister group to this one,
>> comp.lang.c++.moderated, did have a charter, but googling it I did not
>> find it. As I recall that charter defined as off-topic postings about
>> how to use any particular API: a flood of Windows API postings in
>> comp.lang.c++ was a main reason that the moderated group was created.
>
> The signal-to-noise ratio of this group (comp.lang.c++)
> ebbs and flows over time. We seem to be at a relative
> low point (due, I think, both to decreased signal -- maybe
> because of other discussion forums -- and, for whatever
> reason, to increased noise).
We should plot the damn ebbs and flows in a vector field.
> Hello Alf and Group!
>
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 9:07:28 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> Usenet, with groups like this one, predates the World Wide Web.
>> ...
>> The now defunct moderated sister group to this one,
>> comp.lang.c++.moderated, did have a charter, but googling it I did not
>> find it. As I recall that charter defined as off-topic postings about
>> how to use any particular API: a flood of Windows API postings in
>> comp.lang.c++ was a main reason that the moderated group was created.
>
> The signal-to-noise ratio of this group (comp.lang.c++)
> ebbs and flows over time. We seem to be at a relative
> low point (due, I think, both to decreased signal -- maybe
> because of other discussion forums -- and, for whatever
> reason, to increased noise).
;^)
0 new messages