To Peter Seibel
spinoza1111
Practical Common Lisp and I liked it.
However, your unwarranted attack on Herb Schildt is for me a black
mark on your record. Essentially, as a journalist and not a
programmer, you seemed to have followed fashion and accepted at face
value the opinions of people outside the IBM/Microsoft "tradition":
they their praxis is definitive of "real" computer science and that
people speaking from inside the IBM/Microsoft "tradition" don't know
what they are talking about.
For this reason, I won't by "Coders at Work". It looks to me like a
second- or third- order derivative of the old Paris Review interviews
"Writers at Work" by way of a 1986 Microsoft Press title "Programmers
at Work", and it appears it will be another Song of the Doomed: "we,
who appear to be corporate slaves or corporate sharks, are rilly
Ahtists, as long as we use the Politically Correct platforms".
Which is false. The fact is that programming innovations can be shown
by real historical research to be discovered simultaneously all over
the world as technology, the impersonal force driving the ersatz
creativity, evolves independent of any one human will. For example,
Steve Wozniak claims in "iWoz" to have been the first man on earth to
see a digitally generated character on a screen when in fact at the
same time, my son was sitting on my lap in 1978 saying "dat yike
TV"...as we saw my typing generate characters on the old IBM 3270
terminal.
The people who you interview were tokens of a type, not original
geniuses in any way, which is why it was doubly offensive for you to
attack Schildt. He's not much dumber than the people you interview
save for Knuth.
Unless you desire to be the Sarah Palin of technology, Peter, I
suggest you take a computer science class to discover that the
idealization of models such as the stack necessitates their
instantiation, and how it's a mistake to attack accidental features of
the instantiation.
I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
an apology for the harm you have done.
Edward G. Nilges
--
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: cl...@plethora.net -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Seebs
> However, your unwarranted attack on Herb Schildt is for me a black
> mark on your record.
Please ignore this moron. He's inexplicably obsessed with Herb Schildt's
writing, and just posts stuff like this to try to pick fights.
FWIW, I did go pick up a copy of the 4th edition of C:TCR, and it does
indeed continue to have major, fundamental flaws -- not merely quirks, but
a genuine failure to understand basic principles of C. The book remains
garbage -- though it fixes many of the things that people pointed out,
which interestingly proves that Spinny was, in fact, totally wrong to
claim that these things were not errors. ;)
Anyway, you can safely ignore this guy. He's pretty much harmless; he'll
rant for a while if you try to talk to him, but he won't advance actual
arguments for his position, and pretty much everything he says about
programming, Schildt, writing, or any other topic we know of can be reasonably
disregarded.
-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!
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-09, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > However, your unwarranted attack on Herb Schildt is for me a black
> > mark on your record.
>
> Please ignore this moron. He's inexplicably obsessed with Herb Schildt's
> writing, and just posts stuff like this to try to pick fights.
I'm not a moron, Peter. I am a published Apress author, as you are,
and my book "Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler" was dev edited
by Dan Appleman. You are indirectly impugning his judgement and that
of Gary Cornell in your destructive insistence that your vicious
little tirade was correct or even appropriate, and your willingness to
abuse defenders of Schildt online, engaging in ad hominem attacks. If
this is how you treat your colleagues at work, and you are
representative, I'm really glad no longer to have to work with para-
programmers like you.
You're an English major. Schildt has undergraduate and graduate
degrees in computer science. You formed your own little theories of
programming on the fly and on the job, as I did after graduating with
a philosophy degree, but I returned to graduate school to study real
compsci. My teachers emphasised things you laugh at like a child, such
as twos-complement and simple stacks that share memory with heaps,
because they weren't Silicon Valley journalists concerned with self-
promotion and fashionable raving against Microsoft and IBM.
As to picking fights, asshole, I can't come in here without you or
Heathfield starting something based on your rage that I can
write...better than you, oh journalist, and have more culture despite
the fact that my Daddy didn't send me to an expensive university.
>
> FWIW, I did go pick up a copy of the 4th edition of C:TCR, and it does
> indeed continue to have major, fundamental flaws -- not merely quirks, but
> a genuine failure to understand basic principles of C. The book remains
There are no "basic principles" of C in the sense that there are
"basic principles" of physics, since C is praxis. That a sequence of
execution is undefined (such as in the case of parameter evaluation,
which was reversed for early developer convenience) is not a
"principle": computer programmers don't have the right to be
Heisenberg-uncertain.
> garbage -- though it fixes many of the things that people pointed out,
> which interestingly proves that Spinny was, in fact, totally wrong to
> claim that these things were not errors. ;)
Don't call me Spinny, jerk face. And what I said was that you
systematically exaggerated minor ERRORS in a vendetta.
>
> Anyway, you can safely ignore this guy. He's pretty much harmless; he'll
> rant for a while if you try to talk to him, but he won't advance actual
> arguments for his position, and pretty much everything he says about
> programming, Schildt, writing, or any other topic we know of can be reasonably
> disregarded.
Here you go again, like a maiden aunt or little girl, talking
personalities and not principles. Seibel, you're not a programmer:
you're a journalist, of the sort that at Wired tried to destroy Ted
Nelson. No real programmer would have condemned Schildt for being
explicit and concrete as possible about the stack, because REAL
programmers don't say things are "undefined" when they are not
undefined in specific implementations.
I dare you to say your vulgar, offensive, and childish things to my
face. This is because there is neither a science nor are there basic
principles of mistakes and vendor greed, you dig me?
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Francis Glassborow
> On 2009-12-09, spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> However, your unwarranted attack on Herb Schildt is for me a black
>> mark on your record.
>
> Please ignore this moron. He's inexplicably obsessed with Herb Schildt's
> writing, and just posts stuff like this to try to pick fights.
>
> FWIW, I did go pick up a copy of the 4th edition of C:TCR, and it does
> indeed continue to have major, fundamental flaws -- not merely quirks, but
> a genuine failure to understand basic principles of C. The book remains
> garbage -- though it fixes many of the things that people pointed out,
> which interestingly proves that Spinny was, in fact, totally wrong to
> claim that these things were not errors. ;)
>
> Anyway, you can safely ignore this guy. He's pretty much harmless; he'll
> rant for a while if you try to talk to him, but he won't advance actual
> arguments for his position, and pretty much everything he says about
> programming, Schildt, writing, or any other topic we know of can be reasonably
> disregarded.
Agreed, but how is Peter Seibel related to you? He does not look
anything like you (or is your hair a wig?). Perhaps it is just another
example of the OP's excellent research skills.
Anyone interested can google Peter Seebach and Peter Seibel and compare
photos.
Peter Seibel
> I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
> an apology for the harm you have done.
Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)
-Peter
Flash Gordon
> On Dec 8, 11:24 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
>> an apology for the harm you have done.
>
> Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
> opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
> anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)
Well, perhaps you should replace the opinion in your mind with an
apology in your mind and stop sending out bad karma. Alternatively,
Francis might be correct and the OP thought you were someone who merely
has a similar name.
--
Flash Gordon
Clive D. W. Feather
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ooo, he's back. And just as entertainingly clueless as ever.
>You're an English major. Schildt has undergraduate and graduate
>degrees in computer science.
And have you managed to find out my qualifications yet? Or are your
research skills as lacking as ever?
>as I did after graduating with
>a philosophy degree,
Pot, meet kettle?
>Don't call me Spinny, jerk face.
Very well, Otto.
>you're a journalist, of the sort that at Wired tried to destroy Ted
>Nelson.
You seem to have this fixation that everyone except you is out to
"destroy" someone.
> No real programmer would have condemned Schildt for being
>explicit and concrete as possible about the stack, because REAL
>programmers don't say things are "undefined" when they are not
>undefined in specific implementations.
Still wrong.
Indeed, I'm now programming on a processor where certain behaviour is
very specifically undefined. Including something equivalent to your
favourite "i = i++".
Otto, you're a pathetic fool who's fixated on one erroneous point. Why
don't you just give up?
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Peter Seibel
> On Dec 9, 3:40 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-12-09, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > However, your unwarranted attack on Herb Schildt is for me a black
> > > mark on your record.
>
> > Please ignore this moron. He's inexplicably obsessed with Herb Schildt's
> > writing, and just posts stuff like this to try to pick fights.
>
> I'm not a moron, Peter. I am a published Apress author, as you are,
You're replying to Peter Seebach, yet you seem to be addressing me,
Peter Seibel. We're not the same person.
> You're an English major.
I am. Or I was. Dunno what degrees Seebach may have. Anyway, you seem
confused.
-Peter
spinoza1111
> On Dec 8, 11:24 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
> > an apology for the harm you have done.
>
> Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
> opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
> anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)
>
> -Peter
> --
> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
My mistake. I withdraw the thread claim. Peter SEEBACH posted the
complaint about Schildt, Seibel is an Apress author. The two
individuals are completely different. Peter Seibel, my apologies to
you most sincerely. Seebach, please remove all posts not as a favor to
me but as a courtesy to Seibel.
A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
is unqualified to manage clcm.
I do not think he will do so, because Seebach is the type of arrested
adolescent who likes to fuck people over based on relatively trivial
mistakes, which makes him feel better about himself despite his
professional limitations. This is a form of negative politics: it was
used on Dan Rather by Bush supporters when Rather was "fooled" by a
document on Bush's military service.
However, some of us are right so often on such far more important
matters that we don't get our panty hose in a tangle about these
campaigns. Therefore, to save SEEBACH work, and to avoid further
confusion as a result of a flame war I will not post anything further
at this thread. Instead, I will post a short note about my error at
spinoza1111.wordpress.com which people may comment upon. I am a more
competent moderator than Seebach and this will minimize confusion.
Mr Seibel, I don't think I can apologize enough to you for dragging
your name so erroneously into what has become an ugly mess.
Seebs
> On Dec 9, 10:54 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm not a moron, Peter. I am a published Apress author, as you are,
> You're replying to Peter Seebach, yet you seem to be addressing me,
> Peter Seibel. We're not the same person.
Are you a published Apress author too? Heady company.
>> You're an English major.
> I am. Or I was. Dunno what degrees Seebach may have. Anyway, you seem
> confused.
I have a degree in psychology, of course. :) I mostly just like studying
how people think. Computers are sort of a hobby. As it happens, they're
currently the hobby which pays the bills. (If you're an English major, I'm
sure you're familiar with the gap between "what my degree is in" and "what
people are likely to pay me to do".)
-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!
Erik Max Francis
> A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
> posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
> emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
> is unqualified to manage clcm.
No, a moderator would not do such a thing. Moderators and editors are
not the same thing. Your errors just keep piling up. (Wait, am I Peter
too?)
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
It's almost like / I didn't even have a choice
-- India Arie
Peter Seibel
> On 2009-12-10, Peter Seibel <peter.sei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 10:54 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not a moron, Peter. I am a published Apress author, as you are,
> > You're replying to Peter Seebach, yet you seem to be addressing me,
> > Peter Seibel. We're not the same person.
>
> Are you a published Apress author too? Heady company.
Guilty. _Practical Common Lisp_ and, more recently, _Coders at Work_.
> >> You're an English major.
> > I am. Or I was. Dunno what degrees Seebach may have. Anyway, you seem
> > confused.
>
> I have a degree in psychology, of course. :) I mostly just like studying
> how people think. Computers are sort of a hobby. As it happens, they're
> currently the hobby which pays the bills. (If you're an English major, I'm
> sure you're familiar with the gap between "what my degree is in" and "what
> people are likely to pay me to do".)
Indeed.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel
http://www.codersatwork.com/
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/blog/
DevSolar
> A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
> posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
> emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
> is unqualified to manage clcm.
Ah, so it's the moderator's fault that he didn't keep you from making
a fool of yourself (as usual)? I have to keep that in mind...
> Mr Seibel, I don't think I can apologize enough to you for dragging
> your name so erroneously into what has become an ugly mess.
Correction: What *you* *made* into an ugly mess. You might note you
are
still very alone in your crusade to destroy Mr. Seebach.
And from a previous post:
> No real programmer would have condemned Schildt for being explicit
> and concrete as possible about the stack, because REAL programmers
> don't say things are "undefined" when they are not undefined in
> specific implementations.
I guess I'm not a "real" programmer then, despite the 20+ years of
programming, the last 10 of which as a professional. In the three
companies I've worked for in that timespan, relying on undefined
behaviour would give you a serious talking-to come peer review day.
A book actually encouraging such behaviour would get tossed out of
the company library in no time.
Dear Mr. Spinoza, I believe none of your posts I've read in the past
few months here has any relevance to comp.lang.c.moderated. Take your
bile to your blog and see how many people are willing to read it.
Taking it out at Mr. Seebach in this group is doing exactly what you
accuse Mr. Seebach of, and dragging the signal / noise ratio of this
group down the drain in the process.
Regards,
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
> posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
> emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
> is unqualified to manage clcm.
So it's Seebs's fault that you're a clueless moron?
> However, some of us are right so often on such far more important
> matters that we don't get our panty hose in a tangle about these
> campaigns. Therefore, to save SEEBACH work, and to avoid further
> confusion as a result of a flame war I will not post anything further
> at this thread.
Yeah, you've said that before, and look where it got us.
> Mr Seibel, I don't think I can apologize enough to you for dragging
> your name so erroneously into what has become an ugly mess.
...no thanks to you.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
Francis Glassborow
> On Dec 10, 2:54 am, Peter Seibel <peter.sei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 11:24 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
>>> an apology for the harm you have done.
>> Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
>> opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
>> anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)
>>
>> -Peter
>> --
>> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
>> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
>> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
>
> My mistake. I withdraw the thread claim. Peter SEEBACH posted the
> complaint about Schildt, Seibel is an Apress author. The two
> individuals are completely different. Peter Seibel, my apologies to
> you most sincerely. Seebach, please remove all posts not as a favor to
> me but as a courtesy to Seibel.
>
> A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
> posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
> emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
> is unqualified to manage clcm.
No, certainly in all the newsgroups I post to it is not the job of a
moderator to reject a post because it is factually incorrect.
From time to time a moderator will check back with a poster of high
repute if they seem to have made a mistake but that is as far as it goes.
In this case accepting your post seems to have been the right thing to
do as it showed just how careful you are when posting. The confusion of
the names is bad, particularly when for content such as the one in
question.
In addition, if you knew much about the way things work these days you
would know that once posted a post cannot be withdrawn. Most
news-servers ignore cancellation requests because they have been heavily
abused in the past.
Seebs
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
>> posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
>> emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
>> is unqualified to manage clcm.
> No, a moderator would not do such a thing. Moderators and editors are
> not the same thing. Your errors just keep piling up. (Wait, am I Peter
> too?)
Anyway, how much research exactly am I supposed to do? The pool of people
who think Schildt's writing is crap is large. For all I knew, Peter Siebel
was an Apress author -- and indeed, it turns out he is. There was nothing
in the post to immediately suggest that it was an error. And, frankly, it
simply DID NOT OCCUR TO ME that, having spent months claiming that I am
behind a huge international conspiracy, Spinny would have suddenly forgotten
my name.
In my capacity as moderator, I really don't care about accuracy, I just
moderate for topicality, and that fairly loosely. (A lot of
borderline-topical stuff is actually more viable in the moderated group,
because the more extreme drift can be dealt with easily enough...) I
certainly don't think it would help Spinny any for me to start moderating
for accuracy, as I doubt he'd be able to get a post through.
-s
p.s.: Actually, it's true that I'm not a professional moderator. I'd be
glad to become one, if anyone wants to start sending checks, or preferably
small unmarked bills.
--
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!
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-11, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
> >spinoza1111wrote:
> >> A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
> >> posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
> >> emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
> >> is unqualified to manage clcm.
> > No, a moderator would not do such a thing. Moderators and editors are
> > not the same thing. Your errors just keep piling up. (Wait, am I Peter
> > too?)
>
> Anyway, how much research exactly am I supposed to do? The pool of people
> who think Schildt's writing is crap is large. For all I knew, Peter Siebel
This is because YOUR post went viral and appeared to be multiple
sources of information. Internet feebs consistently confuse
duplication with new information.
> was an Apress author -- and indeed, it turns out he is. There was nothing
> in the post to immediately suggest that it was an error. And, frankly, it
> simply DID NOT OCCUR TO ME that, having spent months claiming that I am
> behind a huge international conspiracy, Spinny would have suddenly forgotten
> my name.
I would I could. I do not like you. I think you have volunteered to
perform tasks such as service on the standards committee and
moderation here in order to amplify a thin resume which includes NO
education in computer science. I feel bad about confusing you with
Seibel, but if he agrees with you about Schildt, not that bad.
>
> In my capacity as moderator, I really don't care about accuracy, I just
> moderate for topicality, and that fairly loosely. (A lot of
> borderline-topical stuff is actually more viable in the moderated group,
> because the more extreme drift can be dealt with easily enough...) I
> certainly don't think it would help Spinny any for me to start moderating
> for accuracy, as I doubt he'd be able to get a post through.
>
> -s
> p.s.: Actually, it's true that I'm not a professional moderator. I'd be
> glad to become one, if anyone wants to start sending checks, or preferably
> small unmarked bills.
Such frivolity in fact will be used against you, I hope, the next time
you seek to advance your career by destroying another man's
reputation.
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
<francis.glassbo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 2:54 am, Peter Seibel <peter.sei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 8, 11:24 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I also call upon you to remove the attack on Schildt and replace it by
> >>> an apology for the harm you have done.
> See below.
> >> Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to. (Strangely, I do have an
> >> opinion about Schildt but I don't recall that I've ever published it
> >> anywhere. Are you reading my mind!?)
>
> >> -Peter
> >> --
> >> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
> >> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
> >> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
>
> > My mistake. I withdraw the thread claim. Peter SEEBACH posted the
> > complaint about Schildt, Seibel is an Apress author. The two
> > individuals are completely different. Peter Seibel, my apologies to
> > you most sincerely. Seebach, please remove all posts not as a favor to
> > me but as a courtesy to Seibel.
>
> > A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
> > posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
> > emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
> > is unqualified to manage clcm.
>
> No, certainly in all the newsgroups I post to it is not the job of a
> moderator to reject a post because it is factually incorrect.
Is that so? Actually, it is the job of a moderator to do so. I have
interacted with Peter Neumann, the model of a good moderator at
comp.risks, and he will consistently send an email to the originator
if something is factually incorrect.
>
> From time to time a moderator will check back with a poster of high
> repute if they seem to have made a mistake but that is as far as it goes.
>
> In this case accepting your post seems to have been the right thing to
> do as it showed just how careful you are when posting. The confusion of
> the names is bad, particularly when for content such as the one in
> question.
Your vindictive behavior not only harmed me; it also harmed Seibel.
You saw an opportunity for a cheap shot but you don't care about
collegiality or respect.
I don't care about professional reputation as a programmer since I've
left the field in disgust with people like you, But you had a
responsibility to Seibel to stop the posts as a moderator.
>
> In addition, if you knew much about the way things work these days you
> would know that once posted a post cannot be withdrawn. Most
> news-servers ignore cancellation requests because they have been heavily
> abused in the past.
This has been pointed out to me. It merely means I have no insight
into the deep incompetence of the Web's design, because I am not at
all impressed by its quality and would prefer knowing as little as
possible about its errors...for the same reason I ceased being an
expert on C after being asked to assist Nash. As Ted "Xanadu" Nelson
has pointed out, you're asking for trouble with "efficient" one-way
pointers and no real way of telling who originated what; in fact, the
failure to adopt a Xanadu-like design explains why garbage like "C:
the Complete Reference" goes viral and appears to be more than it is.
And, to round out the picture, Ted Nelson was subject, by the thugs at
Wired Magazine, to a systematic campaign of personal destruction in
1998 merely for wanting to do a thorough design job on Xanadu, and not
be the first thug to get rich.
Peter's job was to send me an email questioning my confusion of him
with Seibel. If you don't give a fuck about how I look, you should
have given a fuck about Seibel as the innocent bystander. But Peter
Seebach is incompetent as a moderator and appears to volunteer for
jobs at which he is incompetent to make up for a deficient
professional record that, in particular, lacks the educational
background needed to criticise Schildt.
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
spinoza1111
Replace "you" in my reply by Seibel, please. You're defending Seibel's
unconscionable behavior is all.
spinoza1111
> On Dec 10, 11:46 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-12-10, Peter Seibel <peter.sei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I'm not a moron, Peter. I am a published Apress author, as you are,
> > > You're replying to Peter Seebach, yet you seem to be addressing me,
> > > Peter Seibel. We're not the same person.
>
> > Are you a published Apress author too? Heady company.
>
> Guilty. _Practical Common Lisp_ and, more recently, _Coders at Work_.
>
> > >> You're an English major.
> > > I am. Or I was. Dunno what degrees Seebach may have. Anyway, you seem
> > > confused.
>
> > I have a degree in psychology, of course. :) I mostly just like studying
> > how people think. Computers are sort of a hobby. As it happens, they're
> > currently the hobby which pays the bills. (If you're an English major, I'm
> > sure you're familiar with the gap between "what my degree is in" and "what
> > people are likely to pay me to do".)
>
> Indeed.
>
> -Peter
The problem with Seebach is that he's essentially a journalist, as you
appear to be. Whereas Schildt has BS and MSCS degrees from the
University of Illinois in computer science.
This means that Seebach had no standing in attacking Schildt and
endangering his professional reputation and livelihood.
His lack of proper qualifications is evident in this passage:
Herb>> Page 131
Memory allocated by C's dynamic allocation functions is obtained from
the heap -- the region of free memory that lies between your program
and its permanent storage area and the stack.
Seebach>>C does not specify that there is a stack - only that
functions can call each other. The "heap" is a DOS term, and the
layout is not a part of the C language. It is not atypical for the
layout to be radically different, and certainly, there is no call for
describing a specific choice as "what happens".
Seebach's reply above is incompetent and shows a lack of education in
computer science, as well as lack of experience in programming.
C "does not specify that there is a stack" because a language standard
has to be as silent as possible on the semantics of the language so
that developers can find new and better ways to implement the
language. However, students have to know at least one way in which the
language functions at run time as a mental model, and "the" stack
(including the use of the definite article) has been a teaching tool
in the real computer science classes which Seebach so significantly
failed to attend for quite some time.
Furthermore, it is laughable to declare that "the 'heap' is a DOS
term" since it is used in many different platforms (including .Net and
Java) to refer to an area of memory used to store large and
polymorphous objects.
However, even if you and Seebach are journalists first, responsible
and professional journalists do NOT go around attacking professional
experts without getting a certified expert in their field to back up
their claims. The sort of journalists who do this work at best for Fox
news, and trashed midlevel State department experts for claiming
(correctly as it turned out) that Saddam Husayn had no weapons of mass
destruction in 2003.
To claim, as Peter Seebach has claimed, that "I don't need academic
training in computer science because Dijkstra didn't have such
training" is as I have already shown the height of absurdity. There
was no computer science when Dijkstra was at university because he and
others created it.
It is arguably OK to waive certification requirements when selecting
Apress authors or recruiting low-level paraprogrammers to find bugs
and send them to compiler experts (which is what Seibel seems to do
for a living).
However, the contempt most working programmers evince for "academia"
is, as I have found repeatedly over the course of a thirty year
career, merely a shadowy form of the contempt corporate managers have
for science, learning, education, culture and even basic coherence.
That is: corporate managers are an underqualified buffer class between
the owners of capital and the rest of us, the real "priesthood" of our
society, which demands irrationality masquerade as rationality. Their
acolytes become the technicians and gofers who ape their "betters'"
contempt for actual learning and even mere coherence and who, when
their limitations are exposed, tend consistently to engage in personal
destruction, because they know the inner contour of their weakness.
Indeed, this process of mass incompetence is so well-entrenched that
today, Peter Seibel admits cheerfully not only to educational
limitations but also to learning disorders and prescription drug use.
Herb GOT a fucking degree in post-graduate computer science. I took
the first computer science class offered at my university and
subsequently completed most of the work on the MSCS with a straight-A
average. And I discovered that the lessons learned were indeed
applicable to real-world problem solving even though I was a Cobol
programmer at the time; for example, because I knew that it was
possible to simulate radically different architectures, and that the
union of a programming language and machine constitutes a high-level
machine, I rescued a failing telecom project by simulating a PBX in
Cobol.
However, at Bell-Northern Research in the 1980s, I discovered that
altogether too many slobs, too many journalists, too many drug and
food addicts, and too many thugs had been attracted by the smell of
money. I found that these clowns replaced knowledge by subservience to
upper management and the mistreatment of safe targets. I found that
they preferred to steal equipment and misuse company funds for
recreation and orgies just as senior NT management was at the time
using the company as a piggy bank.
When deadlines were slipped, the game became Find the Weirdo, Find the
Scapegoat. In the same way, Schildt's "errors" mean "I don't have to
take a look at myself".
America's technical lead has long collapsed. While certain Americans
like Seebach might enjoy sinecures finding bugs for others to fix,
real coding is done offshore by people like my coworkers four years
ago in Shenzen, who were making a fraction of what Americans make, who
were unable to travel to Hong Kong, but who were able to develop a
complete parser for Visual Basic in a matter of weeks.
This is why you creeps lash out at Schildt.
>
> --
> Peter Seibelhttp://www.codersatwork.com/http://www.gigamonkeys.com/blog/
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Dennis (Icarus)
news:clcm-2009...@plethora.net...
<snip>
>
> Peter's job was to send me an email questioning my confusion of him
> with Seibel. If you don't give a fuck about how I look, you should
> have given a fuck about Seibel as the innocent bystander. But Peter
So you'll be editing and reviewing your posts more carefully, I trust? :-)
Dennis
Dennis
Keith Thompson
> On Dec 12, 4:47 am, Francis Glassborow
> <francis.glassbo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> spinoza1111wrote:
>> > A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
>> > posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
>> > emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
>> > is unqualified to manage clcm.
Your factual error was not straightforward. When I read the original
article, I assumed you were deliberately attacking Peter Seibel.
It didn't occur to me until later that you had confused his name
with Peter Seebach's.
It was your mistake, and it was nobody's fault but your own.
>> No, certainly in all the newsgroups I post to it is not the job of a
>> moderator to reject a post because it is factually incorrect.
>
> Is that so? Actually, it is the job of a moderator to do so. I have
> interacted with Peter Neumann, the model of a good moderator at
> comp.risks, and he will consistently send an email to the originator
> if something is factually incorrect.
Different moderated newsgroups have different policies. comp.risks
is a digest, in which the moderator selects which content to post and
wields considerable authority as an editor. comp.lang.c.moderated
is a discussion group, in which the moderator's job is mostly to
filter out spam and other off-topic material.
I do somewhat disagree with Peter Seebach's moderation policies,
mostly in that he lets *any* of your ravings see the light of day.
But I merely disagee with him on this point; I'm not saying he's
wrong.
[...]
>> In addition, if you knew much about the way things work these days you
>> would know that once posted a post cannot be withdrawn. Most
>> news-servers ignore cancellation requests because they have been heavily
>> abused in the past.
>
> This has been pointed out to me. It merely means I have no insight
> into the deep incompetence of the Web's design, because I am not at
> all impressed by its quality and would prefer knowing as little as
> possible about its errors
[snip]
Lesson 1: Usenet is not the web.
[...]
> Peter's job was to send me an email questioning my confusion of him
> with Seibel.
To do that, Peter would have had to know that you had confused Seebach
with Seibel. He had no reasonable way of knowing that.
[...]
I've removed comp.lang.c from the Newsgroups header, posting this only
to comp.lang.c.moderated.
--
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"
Keith Thompson
[...]
> Replace "you" in my reply by Seibel, please. You're defending Seibel's
> unconscionable behavior is all.
Do you mean Seebach? Seibel is the innocent third party you libeled
after confusing his name with Seebach, remember?
Of course, neither Seibel nor Seebach has enanged in "unconscionable
behavior". You, on the other hand, after attacking Mr. Seebach
for not correcting your mistake, apparently are two lazy to avoid
making the same mistake again.
--
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"
Keith Thompson
[...]
> As Ted "Xanadu" Nelson
> has pointed out, you're asking for trouble with "efficient" one-way
> pointers and no real way of telling who originated what; in fact, the
> failure to adopt a Xanadu-like design explains why garbage like "C:
> the Complete Reference" goes viral and appears to be more than it is.
Did you really mean to refer to Schildt's book "C: the Complete
Reference" as garbage?
To the moderator: This poster apparently wants you to reject any post
that contains factual errors. I suggest that rejecting all posts by
spinoza1111 would be a good way to accomplish that, and one to which
he could not possibly object.
(Yes, I've posted several followups to spinoza1111 today. I won't
make a habit of it.)
--
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"
Philip Paeps
> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes [nonsense as usual]
>
> To the moderator: This poster apparently wants you to reject any post that
> contains factual errors. I suggest that rejecting all posts by spinoza1111
> would be a good way to accomplish that, and one to which he could not
> possibly object.
>
> (Yes, I've posted several followups to spinoza1111 today. I won't make a
> habit of it.)
Alternatively, Peter could "save up" spinoza1111's drivel and post it weekly
at a predictable time, so we all know when we can expect the "20 new posts in
clcm" to be insightful and interesting and related to our favourite
programming language, or the next episode of the spinoza1111 saga.
For what it's worth, it was entertaining for a while, but it's becoming a bit
of a drag. I understand that Peter's reasoning behing continuing to approve
this noise is that not doing so could be interpreted (by some) as not being
able (or willing) to take criticism directed at him. I feel however, that
regular readers today, and those giggling their way through the archives in
decades to come, should have seen enough now to draw reasonable conclusions
about Peter's ability to handle criticism and spinoza1111's ability to spew
ridiculous trollery.
If anyone's counting votes, I also vote to reject. :-)
- Philip
--
Philip Paeps Please don't email any replies
phi...@paeps.cx I follow the newsgroup.
Seebs
> To the moderator: This poster apparently wants you to reject any post
> that contains factual errors. I suggest that rejecting all posts by
> spinoza1111 would be a good way to accomplish that, and one to which
> he could not possibly object.
s/possibly/rationally/
(and therein lies the problem...)
Sadly, rejecting all posts which contain factual errors is an
omniscience-complete task. I am reminded of a fairly interesting court
case in which Prodigy was found liable for offensive material on their
forums. The key point of the analysis was that, by regularly attempting
to police communications to catch offensive material, they established an
expectation that material they did not edit was inoffensive. Had they simply
refused to do any such censoring, they would not have acquired responsibility
for the errors.
It is beyond my competence to assure that I will catch all errors.
Furthermore, the reality of a discussion group is that discussion of errors
can often be very informative, so they are arguably a valuable contribution.
So I don't intend to change the policy.
I may at some point decide that spinny's on enough of an infinite loop that
future posts could justifiably be rejected as substantively identical to
a sufficient quantity of previous posts that they qualify as spam, though.
-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!
Erik Max Francis
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes [nonsense as usual]
>>
>> To the moderator: This poster apparently wants you to reject any post that
>> contains factual errors. I suggest that rejecting all posts by spinoza1111
>> would be a good way to accomplish that, and one to which he could not
>> possibly object.
>>
>> (Yes, I've posted several followups to spinoza1111 today. I won't make a
>> habit of it.)
>
> Alternatively, Peter could "save up" spinoza1111's drivel and post it weekly
> at a predictable time, so we all know when we can expect the "20 new posts in
> clcm" to be insightful and interesting and related to our favourite
> programming language, or the next episode of the spinoza1111 saga.
>
> For what it's worth, it was entertaining for a while, but it's becoming a bit
> of a drag. I understand that Peter's reasoning behing continuing to approve
> this noise is that not doing so could be interpreted (by some) as not being
> able (or willing) to take criticism directed at him. I feel however, that
> regular readers today, and those giggling their way through the archives in
> decades to come, should have seen enough now to draw reasonable conclusions
> about Peter's ability to handle criticism and spinoza1111's ability to spew
> ridiculous trollery.
I agree with the sentiment -- it was bizarrely entertaining at first but
has just become repetitive lately -- but also am sure that Peter is
doing the right thing by continuing to approve his posts. Rejecting
them, however popular it might be, would represent a huge conflict of
interest.
The best solution is to let the guy continue to rant, and those who
don't want to read it should just use a killfile.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
All men think all men mortal, save themselves.
-- Edmund Young
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [...]> As Ted "Xanadu" Nelson
> > has pointed out, you're asking for trouble with "efficient" one-way
> > pointers and no real way of telling who originated what; in fact, the
> > failure to adopt a Xanadu-like design explains why garbage like "C:
> > the Complete Reference" goes viral and appears to be more than it is.
>
> [...]
>
> Did you really mean to refer to Schildt's book "C: the Complete
> Reference" as garbage?
Nope, I mean to refer to Seebach's post "C: the Complete Nonsense" as
garbage. The problem is that Seebach is not an "individual" person in
any real sense. He's a sort of virtual or viral persona that has
volunteered for jobs for which he is not qualified and who tries to
destroy the reputation of real men and as such he creates a fug of
confusion around him, which he attributes to others.
>
> To the moderator: This poster apparently wants you to reject any post
> that contains factual errors. I suggest that rejecting all posts by
> spinoza1111 would be a good way to accomplish that, and one to which
> he could not possibly object.
If Seebach doesn't want to do his job, and email me with questions,
then by all means he should simply ban my posts. I can still post to
comp.lang.c and spino...@wordpress.com.
This whole matter of "errors" is created by the fact that Christian
fundamentalists and people with learning disorders interpret things
literally and have no way of detecting personal intentions beyond the
crudest of means. People want to believe the worst of others after
growing up in abusive families and being half-educated at inferior
schools, so they delight in finding "errors", do not admit their own,
and ignore corrections.
It reminds me of what Churchill told Lady Astor: yes, I'm drunk, but
tomorrow I shall be sober but you, Madame, shall still be ugly. Like
the New York Times, I post corrections to errors as soon as I notice
them, whereas Seebach has never corrected his error of claiming that
"the 'heap' is a DOS term" or of starting a personal attack on
Schildt. This is because the thugs here grew up in families where they
were beaten or emotionally abused, and sent to schools where the abuse
continued.
>
> (Yes, I've posted several followups to spinoza1111 today. I won't
> make a habit of it.)
>
> --
> 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"
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:clcm-2009...@plethora.net...
> <snip>
>
> > Peter's job was to send me an email questioning my confusion of him
> > with Seibel. If you don't give a fuck about how I look, you should
> > have given a fuck about Seibel as the innocent bystander. But Peter
>
> <snip>
>
> So you'll be editing and reviewing your posts more carefully, I trust? :-)
As always, I shall be more diligent than most of you slobs. I am
referring in particular to deliberate and malicious lack of diligence,
which is the most pernicious type. Seebach doesn't want to do the real
work of moderating a group.
In this, he reminds me of the zany moderator "quertyuiop" at the
placeblog site www.lamma.com.HK, who prefers to make homophobic
remarks and disrupt posting to actually doing his job, and works for a
site moderator whose English is so poor that his site regularly
features bullying and abuse.
[Cue Alan, the zany moderator, who watches for mentions of his silly
name, to enter this discussion.]
It is one thing to make a honest error. Indeed, being tolerant about
errors (one's own and others') is a mark of the great programmer.
But it is quite another to decide to do something stupid and
malicious. Seebach has told us that as a moderator he will approve all
or most posts without due diligence and this abuses the notion of a
moderated group.
The hatred of teachers here is part of the overall dysfunction.
Somehow, people believe that they can be wise without teachers, and
admonish their teachers because the computer, here, seems to be an
independent check on what the teachers say.
I find it hard to believe that Richard Heathfield's teacher, for
example, told him that the end condition of a for loop is tested after
or before each statement in the for loop, although given what Borstals
he seems to have emerged from, one never knows. The problem is that
for him, she's representative of all teachers, except him and his
mates, of course.
But it's logically impossible to know that you know "more than Dennis
Ritchie about C" even if Dennis Ritchie tells you you do, as one clown
here has claimed.
Think about it. Knowledge is justified true belief save for the
inapplicable Gettier counterexample, which proves nothing save the
inadequacy of natural language. If Dennis Ritchie says you know more C
than he, then Ritchie has a justified true belief that you know more
about C.
But how could Ritchie justify this belief? If he asked you questions
to test you he'd have to know the answer. If he had you take an online
test, he'd have to verify that the test was correct. I trusted
Sparknotes to roughly evaluate Richard Heathfield's knowledge of C++
last year but would not do so if he applied to me for a job.
Ritchie's certification of your belief that you know more about C than
he is worthless as knowledge. You know C if you regularly, unlike
let's say me, produce loads of bug-free new code in C, and/or fix hard-
to-fix errors in C code. But there's no way of verifying this apart
from some final authority, more knowledgeable than you, examining your
work and pronouncing it sound.
In traditional engineering, this was usually the faculty of an
engineering school, but here people tend not to recognize CS faculty
as being qualified to do so.
The problem is real. It is as described by a strange philosopher,
Slavoj Zizek, from Slovenia: it is that capitalism is the one ideology
that cannot be a super-ego, but must instead be part of the id.
For if it were like Communism or Catholicism it would be questionable,
we could ask it questions. But as it turns out, modern societies
cannot even function without capitalism. Deng Xiao Peng discovered
this in China.
Circa 1970, young men wanted to be "free" of "authority" and "think"
for "themselves". The computer came along in the knick of time to make
young men appear smarter than old bastards. This was in my experience
at the time insanely great, because it meant that contrary to my Dad's
gloomy prognosis, I could get a well-paying job and move out of his
house without getting a haircut.
But today, it is bullshit, because it's irresponsible to attack a guy
like Schildt, who learned to speak concretely of "the" stack in CS
classes, based on nothing more than your own learning-disordered
experience with C. This is because, dear Peter, your attack doesn't
help the working educator in the slightest.
I will credit your knowledge on C when and if you write an Apress book
on how to code great and portable C on the model of your scripting
book. I want to see a book that clearly sets out the variants and
dialects of C, not some book that preaches the one true way. To
prepare for writing this book, you should read Hans Kung, the Catholic
theologian, on Islam, because Kung shows how to write about a
polysemic text and its religion without saying "this is what it must
mean". Oh, and by the way: you will need to study Microsoft C and C++
to do an acceptable job, and I suggest one Herb Schildt as an
authority in this.
(Chortle).
It doesn't help students to tell them that i = i++ + 1; is undefined
if the compiler they use decides to do the postincrement before the
add. This is because they are using the same direct experience with a
constructed reality Kernighan et al. used when it works for them.
Had you had real compiler experience, you would have noticed that the
Standard is useless to compiler writers if it says that order of
evaluation is indeterminate. Your own compiler would have had to
either decide on a priority independent of the standard, or else
randomize the choice.
You were it seems afraid to be the Standard Father and overhaul C to
be quite clear on precedence, for roughly the same reason Americans
don't get health insurance: the greed of software vendors and
insurance companies controls. To overhaul C, I believe, would have
offended the new Gods; the capitalist vendors who would have been
Offended (where this participle is overused today) had you and your
mates decided that C needed to be truly standardized by announcing
new, and incompatible precedence rules in place of sequence points.
If the Father (whom Zizek calls the Big Other) is overthrown,
"freedom" doesn't result. Instead the Horde of Sons who've killed the
Father fall to fighting amongst themselves and (as in the story of
Noah's drunkenness or Onan's "sin" in the Bible), the sons who seem to
be "good" are punished; Ham for covering his naked father (and seeing
his nakedness) and Onan for trying to avoid incest by jerking off.
The point is actually the restoration of patriarchal authority which
seemed to Kong-Fuzi (Confucius) to be necessary in an interregnum in
which we find ourselves, and in this "period of warring states" or
[Russian] "time of troubles" "bad" sons are sacrificed as was the
reputation of Schildt.
... in the absence, in other words, of adult supervision.
You want to be the new authority but in the case of C this would have
been taking upon yourself the role of being the new Ritchie, and
legislating the priority of preincrement or post-increment (or getting
rid of them as a bad idea). But this would have created a crisis of
legitimacy, for the rest of the Horde would have said, what's this guy
doing? How DARE he tell us what C should be?
Vendor economic power in the capitalist network would have done the
rest of the job.
>
> Dennis
>
> Dennis
>
> .
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> the Complete Reference" goes viral and appears to be more than it is.
...should read "C: the Complete Nonsense"
Peter Seibel
> Indeed, this process of mass incompetence is so well-entrenched that
> today, Peter Seibel admits cheerfully not only to educational
> limitations but also to learning disorders and prescription drug use.
Uh, what? I cheerfully admit to having a degree in English. Whether
that is an educational limitation or not, is up to the reader to
decide. I deny that I have any learning disorders and do not take any
prescription drugs that are relevant to this discussion. Or are you
confusing me with someone else again?
-Peter
John Bode
Key word being "professional"; AFAIK, Seebs isn't being paid to
moderated c.l.c.m; he has a day job (I'm assuming) that pays the
bills, and performs moderation duties in his spare time.
> > No, certainly in all the newsgroups I post to it is not the job of a
> > moderator to reject a post because it is factually incorrect.
>
> Is that so? Actually, it is the job of a moderator to do so. I have
> interacted with Peter Neumann, the model of a good moderator at
> comp.risks, and he will consistently send an email to the originator
> if something is factually incorrect.
>
It's up to the individual moderator to decide how he or she is going
to moderate; there's no official Usenet rule book for moderation
AFAIK. There's a whole spectrum of moderation behaviors, from laissez-
faire to rigidly dictatorial. At one extreme you have talk.origins,
which is moderated by a script that checks for excessive crossposts,
crossposts to other moderated groups, posts by known incorrigible
trolls who've exhibited *very* bad behavior in the past, and *nothing
else* -- accuracy and topicality are simply not part of the moderation
guidelines. That's by design of the moderator, DIG, who has
repeatedly stated he would rather the group not be moderated at all.
Somewhere towards the other end you have Neumann. Seebs seems typical
of most Usenet moderators; screen for topicality or interest, and
leave it up to the poster to check his or her own facts.
If he were being *paid* to moderate, then you could demand higher
standards. Until then, only you are responsible for your mistakes.
>
>
> > From time to time a moderator will check back with a poster of high
> > repute if they seem to have made a mistake but that is as far as it goes.
>
> > In this case accepting your post seems to have been the right thing to
> > do as it showed just how careful you are when posting. The confusion of
> > the names is bad, particularly when for content such as the one in
> > question.
>
> Your vindictive behavior not only harmed me; it also harmed Seibel.
> You saw an opportunity for a cheap shot but you don't care about
> collegiality or respect.
>
> I don't care about professional reputation as a programmer since I've
> left the field in disgust with people like you, But you had a
> responsibility to Seibel to stop the posts as a moderator.
>
Since your opinion carries very little weight with people who know
what they're talking about, I don't think any harm has been done to
Seibel. And you've harmed yourself far more effectively than anyone
else.
Richard Heathfield
<nonsense snipped>
> I find it hard to believe that Richard Heathfield's teacher, for
> example, told him that the end condition of a for loop is tested
> after or before each statement in the for loop,
You have always found it difficult to believe the truth. That's your
problem, not mine.
<more nonsense snipped>
--
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
Seebs
> On Dec 22, 11:41 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Indeed, this process of mass incompetence is so well-entrenched that
>> today, Peter Seibel admits cheerfully not only to educational
>> limitations but also to learning disorders and prescription drug use.
> Uh, what? I cheerfully admit to having a degree in English. Whether
> that is an educational limitation or not, is up to the reader to
> decide. I deny that I have any learning disorders and do not take any
> prescription drugs that are relevant to this discussion. Or are you
> confusing me with someone else again?
Yes. He's confusing you with me.
I am "mildly" autistic and have pretty extreme ADHD. The latter is somewhat
mitigated by prescription drugs; previously methylphenidate (AKA Ritalin),
but that had unacceptable side effects, so they're trying bupropion (AKA
Welbutrin) on me.
Certainly, this has been an eye-opening experience. Until the last month or
so, I'd never had any two sensory experiences simultaneously. (e.g., when
driving, I have to watch all the cars around me in series, I can't be
processing two of them at once. Lucky I'm fast.)
It's amusing that, AFTER realizing that he had us confused, he... still
has us confused. It's like he's completely incapable of checking his work
in any way.
-s
p.s.: Do we have any idea which of us is the good twin? I have
no goatee. You?
--
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!
stan
> On Dec 23, 6:55 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
>> To the moderator: This poster apparently wants you to reject any post
>> that contains factual errors. I suggest that rejecting all posts by
>> spinoza1111 would be a good way to accomplish that, and one to which
>> he could not possibly object.
>
> If Seebach doesn't want to do his job, and email me with questions,
> then by all means he should simply ban my posts. I can still post to
> comp.lang.c and spino...@wordpress.com.
Seems like the best idea would be to just drop all posts that have
nothing to do with C or contain personal attacks on anyone, moderator
included.
> This whole matter of "errors" is created by the fact that Christian
> fundamentalists and people with learning disorders interpret things
> literally and have no way of detecting personal intentions beyond the
> crudest of means. People want to believe the worst of others after
> growing up in abusive families and being half-educated at inferior
> schools, so they delight in finding "errors", do not admit their own,
> and ignore corrections.
>
> It reminds me of what Churchill told Lady Astor: yes, I'm drunk, but
> tomorrow I shall be sober but you, Madame, shall still be ugly. Like
> the New York Times, I post corrections to errors as soon as I notice
> them, whereas Seebach has never corrected his error of claiming that
> "the 'heap' is a DOS term" or of starting a personal attack on
> Schildt. This is because the thugs here grew up in families where they
> were beaten or emotionally abused, and sent to schools where the abuse
> continued.
You seem to have everyone figured out including specific problems. So
I ask; exactly what is wrong with you?
Erik Max Francis
> On Dec 22, 1:40 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A professional moderator (like a professional editor) would have not
>> posted my contribution because of its straightforward factual error,
>> emailing me a query. But Seebach is not a professional moderator and
>> is unqualified to manage clcm.
>
> Key word being "professional"; AFAIK, Seebs isn't being paid to
> moderated c.l.c.m; he has a day job (I'm assuming) that pays the
> bills, and performs moderation duties in his spare time.
Even then, no. _Moderation_ is not the same thing as _editing_.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
I wonder if heaven got a ghetto
-- Tupac Shakur
Seebs
> Even then, no. _Moderation_ is not the same thing as _editing_.
Exactly. clcm has no policy against stupidity, only against things that are
sufficiently obviously off-topic. That's a pretty high standard, although
I do bounce a few articles now and then. (About two to four a month.)
So, for instance, we've omitted yet another newbie-question about ++i*++i,
some detailed discussion of the protocol used to load compiled binaries to
a TI89 calculator, and things like that.
By contrast, Spinny's illucid rants are pretty much undeniably at least
constructed using words which many people could use to write about C.
-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!
Peter Seibel
> p.s.: Do we have any idea which of us is the good twin? I have
> no goatee. You?
Me neither. Though I was voted "Most Likely to Grow A Goatee" back in
high school.
-Peter
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-24, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
> > Even then, no. _Moderation_ is not the same thing as _editing_.
>
> Exactly. clcm has no policy against stupidity, only against things that are
> sufficiently obviously off-topic. That's a pretty high standard, although
> I do bounce a few articles now and then. (About two to four a month.)
>
> So, for instance, we've omitted yet another newbie-question about ++i*++i,
> some detailed discussion of the protocol used to load compiled binaries to
> a TI89 calculator, and things like that.
I have a T-89 and I understand that it is programmable in C. In 1979 I
programmed its predecessor to compile and to interpret the Mouse
programming language.
I'd guess that TI-89 C isn't at all Standard-conformant. Horrors.
So, unlike Peter Neumann, you refuse from cowardice and laziness to
review errors with the poster, and you automatically bounce things
that many people (including the hundreds of thousands of teachers that
use the TI-89 in math classes) need to know about?
You need to RESIGN as moderator of clcm.
>
> By contrast, Spinny's illucid rants are pretty much undeniably at least
"Illucid"? Not lucid, I'd say, and like "the 'heap' is a DOS term"
direct evidence that you have no standing, especially when you seek to
destroy people on the basis of their use of English or programming
knowledge. The Compact OED lists "illegitimate" but not "illucid".
Seeb the Feeb calls me illucid
Editors find me pellucid
Who are we to believe?
Seeb the Feeb sez "heap" is a DOS term
But: in a 1968 book this word did worm
"Programming Systems and Languages"
Edited by Saul Rosen and published by McGraw Hill
Contains essays by many original maguses
(Magi if you must) in which the word "heap"
Doth on little cat feet creep.
There was a fellow named Seebach
Who wrote a rant and a pibroch
'Bout Herbert Schildt
And his programming guilt
But Schildt laughed all the way to the bank, and...back.
> constructed using words which many people could use to write about C.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-23, Peter Seibel <peter.sei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 11:41 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Indeed, this process of mass incompetence is so well-entrenched that
> >> today, Peter Seibel admits cheerfully not only to educational
> >> limitations but also to learning disorders and prescription drug use.
> > Uh, what? I cheerfully admit to having a degree in English. Whether
> > that is an educational limitation or not, is up to the reader to
> > decide. I deny that I have any learning disorders and do not take any
> > prescription drugs that are relevant to this discussion. Or are you
> > confusing me with someone else again?
>
> Yes. He's confusing you with me.
Untrue. Almost immediately, I realized my error and posted a
retraction. Like Winston Churchill with respect to Lady Astor, you're
the problem here, Mr. Seebach.
>
> I am "mildly" autistic and have pretty extreme ADHD. The latter is somewhat
And you want sympathy for having a fashionable disease, while LABELING
people here as insane? I was selected by Princeton to assist Nash and
am today a teacher because I DON'T pull that selfish, unfeeling
bullshit, you self-centered little prick.
> mitigated by prescription drugs; previously methylphenidate (AKA Ritalin),
> but that had unacceptable side effects, so they're trying bupropion (AKA
> Welbutrin) on me.
>
> Certainly, this has been an eye-opening experience. Until the last month or
> so, I'd never had any two sensory experiences simultaneously. (e.g., when
> driving, I have to watch all the cars around me in series, I can't be
> processing two of them at once. Lucky I'm fast.)
>
> It's amusing that, AFTER realizing that he had us confused, he... still
> has us confused. It's like he's completely incapable of checking his work
> in any way.
No, it's not like that. Your failures in simple logic cannot be blamed
on a fashionable disease, since you made them egregiously in "C: The
Complete Nonsense" when you generalized from 20 rather trite errata to
"hundreds" of errors. They are instead a failure in your education and
your socialization.
In the case of code, I wrote some code recently for unmoderated clc
and submitted them for comment because I'm not afraid of you shit
heads. While I checked it, competent posters such as Ben Bacarisse
found errors, and I corrected the errors rapidly, as rapidly as here I
cleared up an incorrect confusion of you and Seibel, something it was
YOUR responsibility as moderator to correct.
Even in a computer book or New York Times article, errors creep in. My
son found errors in Bjarne Stroustrup's book on C++ at the age of 13
and these were acknowledged in later editions. There is an errata site
for my Apress book.
Unless one's a nasty little clerk in a job so deskilled that errors
cannot occur, the making of errors can indicate competence even in a
mathematical sense. If you're creative and courageous, and write a lot
of shell scripts on the job to automate boring tasks and make them in
the final analysis more accurately performed, then statistically
you're also creating buggy code by the nature of things. I myself
decided to write a 26000 line compiler-interpreter for most of Quick
Basic in Visual Basic to visually demonstrate the simplest way to
develop a compiler, using manually-written recursive descent to parse,
an interpreter, limited .Net code generation and even some
optimization.
One Amazon reviewer, after examining the code, praised it for being
far more thorough and error-checked than "most" computer book code.
Logically speaking, it would be as valid to infer from this one case
that I'm a fucking genius...as it is to infer from Herb Schildt's
existential claim that "the" stack, that he's a fucking moron...as it
is to infer from your false claim ("the 'heap' is a DOS term") that
you're another.
Of course, professionals, which you're not, don't do this. Dijsktra
was human enough to ask "how do we tell truths that might hurt" and
although he had problems with John "Lisp" McCarthy, if one reads the
EWD archive online, one finds that Dijkstra starts not by name-calling
but with ideas. He had the courage to say of the IBM 1620 that its
subroutine call mechanism was horseshit and this probably made him
unemployable outside of Burroughs and academia...even inside
Burroughs, any sort of corporate merger or cooperation between
Burroughs and IBM would have been harmed by Dijkstra's courage, and
this may be why Dijkstra became a professor. Because he focused on
ideas, and because his intolerance for bad ideas offended others, he
became a sacred monster.
Whereas you pretend that the problem is "just" internet trolls and
"bad" authors. As such, you are nothing more than a mob member, like
the Roman mob in Julius Caesar that Marc Antony whips into a frenzy.
When it comes upon Cinna the poet, it kills him because he has the
same name as a conspirator. Likewise, you make "Schildt" the name of
the problem, and Herb Schildt is merely a hard working and successful
computer author.
>
> -s
> p.s.: Do we have any idea which of us is the good twin? I have
> no goatee. You?
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
I believe based on what I've learned that Seebach volunteers to do
things in order to appear to have professional qualifications he does
not have. For example, one of the reasons that "C: The Complete
Nonsense" went viral and was cited was that Seebach did actually serve
on C standardization committees, whereas Herb, although he seemed to
have initially joined, did not go to meetings.
But then I learned, from Seebach himself, that Seebach hasn't any
formal academic training in computer science. I've been called a
"script kiddie" myself although I started out in machine language and
I don't like the appelation, but Seebach not only has no academic
training, he also has never developed compilers and his current area
of expertise appears to be ... shell scripting.
Shell scripting is real programming, just like Cobol; just as Dave
Hanson told me that he respects Cobol programmers for their skill in
making silk purses out of sow's ears, it takes brains to use a
scripting language; I wrote a parser generator in Rexx.
However, you need more experience in high-level languages other than
C, as well as academic training, to criticise Herb Schildt, who has as
I've said a BS and MSCS in computer science, and has written a
compiler-interpreter for C. Especially if this is done with what a
libel lawyer would say is "malice", that malice being shown in making
game of a man's name.
Peter may have found himself employable, willy-nilly, in programming
after getting an unrelated degree. This is common. He worked hard to
learn what he knows. Unfortunately, he attacked a professional to
build his reputation, and it appears to me that he took on the jobs of
moderator here, and member of the C standardization effort, from
careerist motives. He may have worked hard on the C standard, but his
performance as moderator here gets an F from me. Not only because he
doesn't follow up on obvious errors but also because he attacks
posters as "morons".
> standards. Until then, only you are responsible for your mistakes.
Shut, your, yap. I don't see any real personal responsibility here. It
would start with moderators acting even more collegial than posters,
and it would start with a realization that real harm is done to people
here. I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
name, and personal responsibility is meaningless unless connected with
interpersonal charity, basic decency, and doing your homework.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > From time to time a moderator will check back with a poster of high
> > > repute if they seem to have made a mistake but that is as far as it goes.
>
> > > In this case accepting your post seems to have been the right thing to
> > > do as it showed just how careful you are when posting. The confusion of
> > > the names is bad, particularly when for content such as the one in
> > > question.
>
> > Your vindictive behavior not only harmed me; it also harmed Seibel.
> > You saw an opportunity for a cheap shot but you don't care about
> > collegiality or respect.
>
> > I don't care about professional reputation as a programmer since I've
> > left the field in disgust with people like you, But you had a
> > responsibility to Seibel to stop the posts as a moderator.
>
> Since your opinion carries very little weight with people who know
> what they're talking about, I don't think any harm has been done to
Proclaiming that you are such people carries no weight with me. I
could tell that my coworkers Bob Gaskins and Whitfield Diffie at Bell
Northern Research were geniuses just by listening to them. When I
looked at Nash's C code I was like, whoa. And neither Gaskins, nor
Diffie, nor Nash at any time called other people "morons" or made
crude curse-words out of other people's names. Quite the opposite in
Nash's case. I saw John Horton "Game of Life" Conway treat Nash rather
roughly just prior to the point where the Princeton community
collectively realized who Nash was, and this was right after Conway
had joined the faculty, so it was somewhat understandable...although
it lowers Conway's greatness in my eyes.
John McCarthy fucks with people as does Dave "Windows NT" Cutler and
Steve Ballmer: we get from them Lisp (zzz), Windows (eek) and
practical jokes including the persecution on the job of Gates, without
whom Ballmer would be a middle manager.
Edward Teller liked to fuck with people and developed the (hopefully)
unused H bomb; Albert Einstein didn't fuck with people and developed
the Theory of Relativity. I rest my case.
As Kenny and "Richard" here have realized along with me, for you
clowns to say you are in the know doesn't make you in the know. And
fucking around with a man's reputation without standing doesn't make
you a genius except by the most barbaric of measures, wherein the
savage eats the heart of his enemy.
So shut, your, trap.
> Seibel. And you've harmed yourself far more effectively than anyone
> else.
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-22, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
> > To the moderator: This poster apparently wants you to reject any post
> > that contains factual errors. I suggest that rejecting all posts by
> > he could not possibly object.
>
> s/possibly/rationally/
> (and therein lies the problem...)
>
> Sadly, rejecting all posts which contain factual errors is an
> omniscience-complete task. I am reminded of a fairly interesting court
> case in which Prodigy was found liable for offensive material on their
> forums. The key point of the analysis was that, by regularly attempting
> to police communications to catch offensive material, they established an
> expectation that material they did not edit was inoffensive. Had they simply
> refused to do any such censoring, they would not have acquired responsibility
> for the errors.
Wow, sleazy. You don't want to exercise personal responsibility
(although you'll talk about its absence in others) because some pig
corporation got into trouble?
Furthermore, I note the apparent absence in your mind of any
distinction whatsoever between two types of harm. The one is offense
to bourgeois religion and politeness constituted in the use (including
the benign use) of words like "fuck". The other is the deliberate,
malicious, and systematic attempt to ruin a person's reputation,
employment, employability and life by starting a viral whispering
campaign.
Please take note of something. There is no known upper bound on malice
in this group. For Richard to admit to the harm he's done would cause
him to go insane. A sign of this is your refusal to use email to clear
things up, either bad feelings, or else errors. Merely to use email
would defuse in the sense that email is just one step closer to person
to person encounters, and in person to person encounters all but truly
evil people (Iago and Hitler) drop the mask.
You wanted Herb to suffer. Just as the viral whispering campaign
against Java author Kathy Sierra started at www.meankid.org "just for
fun" and as a poorly thought out campaign ended in death and rape
threats, you want Herb to be unemployable and homeless, and you want
to laugh at him from the other side of the plate-glass window. This is
what it MEANS to post twenty trite errata alongside the undocumented
claim that there were hundreds more (if it was a serious error to talk
about the stack, one wonders what the other less serious errors were).
In other words, in a collapsing American economy (one that's been
collapsing for some time), you are Bruce Ismay in the Titanic
lifeboat, with your shoe pressed against another's face. There is no
limit to your darkness and it's my job, I guess, to bring this to your
attention.
I think if Richard Heathfield or you continue your behavior, you may
become as evil as Iago or Hitler. The famous Milgram experiment did
prove that academic males can inflict (believe they inflict) pain and
harm on others with no upper bound. But I think if we were to
encounter each other at say some conference you'd flee the interview,
where fear creates hate.
Yes, we have a responsibility to "software correctness". But if you
had a sense of this responsibility, you would have fixed and not
blessed C's deficiencies in this area.
The overdefinition of the religious right of "evil" to mean the
blasphemy of God or the use of sexual signifiers CREATES the uncharity
where people lack any sense of evil when they hurt others.
How do we tell truths that might hurt? Dijkstra, perhaps
unconsciously, knew that there is no scientific truth when people are
made, by campaigns of personal destruction, into servants of lies. If
it's necessary to a man's livelihood that he defend the architecture
of the IBM 1620, he will do so. Dijkstra solved the tragic equation by
talking about groups of people designated by description and not
enumeration, not saying "IBMers", instead saying "people who use
sloppy English".
Dijkstra enumerated John Backus' Fortran and McCarthy's Lisp as
intellectual accomplishments in 1999 despite the fact that he thought
some of their ideas deficient. He was able to do so because he didn't
make people's names into symbols for incompetence, and that is what
you do here.
Trust me, your fears are overblown. Peter Neumann of SRI exercises
censorship of falsehoods without fear. Whereas you look malicious or
stupid (or both) when you allow Richard's claim that "Nilges has never
been approved at comp.risks" when it's so easy to refute. And you look
malicious and/or stupid when you allow yourself to be confused with
Seibel.
>
> It is beyond my competence to assure that I will catch all errors.
So what do you do at the job? Do you set yourself each day the goal of
finding five errors in the compiler for sending on to the real
experts?
And what would you say about a person who refused to catch ANY errors
in software based on the above defense? Errors in which a real person
such as Seibel is harmed?
> Furthermore, the reality of a discussion group is that discussion of errors
> can often be very informative, so they are arguably a valuable contribution.
Yes, which is why I need to be paid for posting here, especially when
I code. I make the most intelligent blunders in this group, such as
testing a while condition using a formula with an invariant
subexpression. :-).
However, there seems to be two Peter Seebachs. One says here that
errors are valuable. The other calls people morons when they make
errors.
>
> So I don't intend to change the policy.
>
> I may at some point decide that spinny's on enough of an infinite loop that
> future posts could justifiably be rejected as substantively identical to
> a sufficient quantity of previous posts that they qualify as spam, though.
Sure, you're so half-literate that complexity above a smallish upper
bound seems like junk mail from an alternate universe. Go ahead and
ban me, there are plenty of other venues.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Clive D. W. Feather
>I believe based on what I've learned that Seebach volunteers to do
>things in order to appear to have professional qualifications he does
>not have.
You believe half a dozen false things before breakfast each day. So
what?
>For example, one of the reasons that "C: The Complete
>Nonsense" went viral and was cited was that Seebach did actually serve
>on C standardization committees, whereas Herb, although he seemed to
>have initially joined, did not go to meetings.
So Peter did real work to benefit the entire community, while Herb
couldn't be bothered.
>However, you need more experience in high-level languages other than
>C, as well as academic training, to criticise Herb Schildt,
On the contrary, to validly criticize Herb all you need is the ability
to read English properly.
>I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
>harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
>name,
You know what? I don't believe you. Provide some real evidence.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
spinoza1111
> In message <clcm-20091224-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I believe based on what I've learned that Seebach volunteers to do
> >things in order to appear to have professional qualifications he does
> >not have.
>
> You believe half a dozen false things before breakfast each day. So
> what?
>
> >For example, one of the reasons that "C: The Complete
> >Nonsense" went viral and was cited was that Seebach did actually serve
> >on C standardization committees, whereas Herb, although he seemed to
> >have initially joined, did not go to meetings.
>
> So Peter did real work to benefit the entire community, while Herb
> couldn't be bothered.
No, Peter sanctified C as a weird nondeterministic programming
language and retarded progress because he serves corporate interests.
>
> >However, you need more experience in high-level languages other than
> >C, as well as academic training, to criticise Herb Schildt,
>
> On the contrary, to validly criticize Herb all you need is the ability
> to read English properly.
WTF? False. This means that an English professor without programming
experience could criticise Schildt. That's bullshit, my dear fellow.
>
> >I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
> >harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
> >name,
>
> You know what? I don't believe you. Provide some real evidence.
I am not at liberty to disclose my sources in this matter, m'lud. So
screw you. M'lud.
You aped Seebach in your own effort and the result is to laugh:
3.14
## An object is either a variable or a constant that resides at a
## physical memory address.
In C, a constant does not reside in memory, (except for some string
literals) and so is not an object.
This is untrue and against the spirit of your own standard, since you
tell the implementor what he cannot do. Depending on the architecture,
the constants will be embedded in instructions, in the use of special
purpose increment and decrement instructions, or local variables. The
exception would be constant-valued subexpressions.
You do what Seebach accuses Schildt of doing when Seebach criticises
his use of "stack": you assume what you want to assume about the
implementation to make your rather feeble point.
5.1.1.3
The standard is clear that diagnostics are required when syntax rules
and constraints are violated, and are optional otherwise. This is not
covered at all. Instead we get the vague statement that
## The standard requires that a compiler issue error messages when
## an error in the source code is encountered.
without discussing the different kinds of errors.
This isn't an error. It's an opinion as to what level of detail the
reader needs. You don't speak for the reader, my dear boy.
5.1.2.2
## You are therefore free to declare main() as required by your
## program.
This statement is immediately followed by the example:
void main (void)
even though the text of the standard directly opposite states that
this is undefined. Indeed, the text I quote makes me wonder whether
Schildt believes that:
struct foo { int i; double d; } main (double argc, struct foo
argv)
is permitted !
Most of the examples in the book declare main() as void. I won't
bother to point them out individually.
The only problem occurs when a host requires a return from a main.
Outside (and perhaps inside) the embedded world, where the smaller
number of developers is smart enough to know it, it doesn't matter,
and you're a thug who tries to ruin people based on this canard.
The only concern is ultra-portability so that we can run C code on
anything from mainframes to toasters. However, if we need portability,
we don't use C, we use Java. To "port" C requires a massive forensic
effort because even "good" C contains gotchas, because C was poorly
designed by adolescents.
Your essay is in fact modeled closely on Seebach's which suggests a
conspiracy to "take down" Schildt because of the popularity of his
early work in C such as "born to code" and his Microsoft centricity.
Also, I believe I knew and mentored Ray Chen of Microsoft when I was
at Princeton University. He was a decent guy who read books as he
walked down Prospect Avenue and I think of him when I read while
walking to work in Hong Kong, and I think you're misusing his
authority.
>
> --
> Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
> Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
> Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Erik Max Francis
> On Dec 26, 9:35 am, "Clive D. W. Feather" <cl...@davros.org> wrote:
>> In message <clcm-20091224-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111
>> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
>>> harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
>>> name,
>> You know what? I don't believe you. Provide some real evidence.
>
> I am not at liberty to disclose my sources in this matter, m'lud. So
> screw you. M'lud.
Then why bother bringing it up? Duh.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and
we'll be lucky to live through it. -- Adm. Josh Painter
Clive D. W. Feather
>interacted with Peter Neumann, the model of a good moderator at
>comp.risks, and he will consistently send an email to the originator
>if something is factually incorrect.
Then fine for him.
However, "moderation" is a broad spectrum which ranges from pure spam
filtering at one end to editing and rewriting at the other. Just because
one group does it one way doesn't mean all groups have to do it the same
way. There is no reason Peter Seebach has to moderate in the same way as
Peter Neumann.
>Your vindictive behavior not only harmed me; it also harmed Seibel.
Bollocks. You're the only one to have harmed yourself, by your own
carelessness.
>> In addition, if you knew much about the way things work these days
you
>> would know that once posted a post cannot be withdrawn. Most
>> news-servers ignore cancellation requests because they have been
heavily
>> abused in the past.
>
>This has been pointed out to me. It merely means I have no insight
>into the deep incompetence of the Web's design,
And so we see your further incompetence, since this is not "the Web" but
Usenet, a different and older entity.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Clive D. W. Feather
Given the number of errors you've made recently, that's a laugh.
>I find it hard to believe that Richard Heathfield's teacher, for
>example, told him that the end condition of a for loop is tested after
>or before each statement in the for loop,
Why? Incompetent teachers do exist.
>although given what Borstals
>he seems to have emerged from,
And *that* is a libellous statement.
>But it's logically impossible to know that you know "more than Dennis
>Ritchie about C" even if Dennis Ritchie tells you you do, as one clown
>here has claimed.
>
>Think about it.
[...]
>But how could Ritchie justify this belief? If he asked you questions
>to test you he'd have to know the answer.
Tut, I thought you understood basic logic.
If I can answer a question that he can't, and demonstrate to him why my
answer is correct, it demonstrates that I know more than him. Try
looking up "NP problem" to see how that can happen.
>I want to see a book that clearly sets out the variants and
>dialects of C,
I can see no benefit in this, since portable programming means not
needing to know about the variants.
>It doesn't help students to tell them that i = i++ + 1; is undefined
>if the compiler they use decides to do the postincrement before the
>add.
Sigh. Of course it helps them to teach them *NOT* to rely on something
that could change without warning.
>Had you had real compiler experience, you would have noticed that the
>Standard is useless to compiler writers if it says that order of
>evaluation is indeterminate.
Good grief, you're even more of an idiot than we thought! The whole
point is to give freedom to compiler writers.
> Your own compiler would have had to
>either decide on a priority independent of the standard, or else
>randomize the choice.
Or neither. I currently work on a system where the same code will
generate the same binary code but that binary will have different
results depending on what else has been happening.
Clive D. W. Feather
>> to read English properly.
>
>WTF? False. This means that an English professor without programming
>experience could criticise Schildt. That's bullshit, my dear fellow.
When Herb writes something that directly contradicts the text that he
cites and that sits on the facing page, any competent 10 year old could
criticize it.
>> >I happen to know that Schildt was psychologically injured and
>> >harmed for a long period of time by the byword that was made of his
>> >name,
>> You know what? I don't believe you. Provide some real evidence.
>I am not at liberty to disclose my sources in this matter, m'lud.
In other words, more unsubstantiated poppycock from Otto.
>3.14
>
>## An object is either a variable or a constant that resides at a
>## physical memory address.
>In C, a constant does not reside in memory, (except for some string
>literals) and so is not an object.
>
>This is untrue and against the spirit of your own standard, since you
>tell the implementor what he cannot do. Depending on the architecture,
>the constants will be embedded in instructions, in the use of special
>purpose increment and decrement instructions, or local variables.
None of which is to do with what the Standard says.
>5.1.1.3
>
>The standard is clear that diagnostics are required when syntax rules
>and constraints are violated, and are optional otherwise. This is not
>covered at all. Instead we get the vague statement that
>## The standard requires that a compiler issue error messages when
>## an error in the source code is encountered.
>without discussing the different kinds of errors.
>
>This isn't an error. It's an opinion as to what level of detail the
>reader needs.
Yes, it's an opinion. My opinion. As I say right up front.
Schildt makes a vague statement that doesn't instruct the reader at all.
He could have done so much better.
>5.1.2.2
>
>## You are therefore free to declare main() as required by your
>## program.
>This statement is immediately followed by the example:
> void main (void)
>even though the text of the standard directly opposite states that
>this is undefined. Indeed, the text I quote makes me wonder whether
>Schildt believes that:
> struct foo { int i; double d; } main (double argc, struct foo
>argv)
>is permitted !
>The only problem occurs when a host requires a return from a main.
False.
>Your essay is in fact modeled closely on Seebach's which suggests a
>conspiracy to "take down" Schildt
Poppycock. We didn't even write about the same book. I don't know when
Peter wrote his essay, but I'm pretty sure I hadn't read it when I wrote
my own review.
>I believe I knew and mentored Ray Chen of Microsoft when I was
>at Princeton University. He was a decent guy who read books as he
>walked down Prospect Avenue and I think of him when I read while
>walking to work in Hong Kong, and I think you're misusing his
>authority.
Raymond asked me to write the review. No "misuse" involved.
spinoza1111
> In message <clcm-20091226-0...@plethora.net>, spinoza1111
Clive, your feeble responses remind me of Boswell's Life of Johnson:
"I mentioned that a gay friend had advised me against being a lawyer,
because I should be excelled by plodding block-heads. JOHNSON. 'Why,
Sir, in the formulary and statutory part of law, a plodding block-head
may excel; but in the ingenious and rational part of it a plodding
block-head can never excel.'"
Likewise, in the "formulary and statutory" activity of codifying the C
standard, there appears to have been >= 2 plodding blockheads.
>
> --CliveD.W.Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
> Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
> Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> In message <clcm-20091226-0...@plethora.net>, spinoza1111
>
I do not know if this was the same Ray Chen. However, it's possible he
may have disliked Schildts book. The problem is that you followed
Seebach's model so closely, because a set of trite objections is not
enough to make your case.
In the parallel case of law, nobody objects to legal chapbooks and
study aids which explain the law as drafted in Parliament or Congress
by legislators concerned to cover all possibilities. Any one of these
could be criticised for giving out wrong information on much more
serious matters than code. Indeed, William Cobbett (who loved to show
his arse to toffs, and toad-eating swine like you) had to fight a
great deal of resistance to publish proceedings in Parliament through
Hansard.
By declaring things undefined, and through the vile strategy of saying
things are false without having the manhood to say what's true, you
show that like most Tory swine, you want a world of knowledge to
become a world of secrets.
Sure glad we beat your ass at Saratoga, Princeton, Trenton, Bunker
Hill, Yorktown, and New Orleans. My recent close study of your
constitution shows me that EU membership is the best thing that ever
happened to the ordinary Briton.
>
> --CliveD.W.Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
> Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
> Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must