Open letter to Mr Thompson
jacob navia
You pointed out that an overflow checking mechanism should also
include checking for overflow whan a narrowing assignment
is done, i.e. an integer into a char, etc.
I think that's a good idea. Specifically, you said:
<quote>
Ok, if it's going to be controlled by a pragma, I wouldn't object to
using a separate one for conversions. But I would object to adding
one to the language without the other.
<end quote>
I answered you then, that it would be nice if you would propose
the narrowing conversion check, and I would propose the overflow check.
Specifically, I said:
It would be much more productive for all if you worked
to propose things too.
You answered to almost all the messages I wrote in that thread except
to that one.
You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.
I have proposed many things here, besides the extensions of
lcc-win. Some of them also in comp.std.c.
Maybe is time for you to propose a change to improve the language?
You seemed to agree (together with Sosman) that overflow checking is
necessary.
Why not getting positive for a change?
Yours sincerely
Mark McIntyre
> Look Keith:
Jacob, its a shame that you chose to put this idea while also attempting
to portray Keith in a negative light and cast aspersions on his character.
Remember that nobody is under any obligation to propose changes to the
Standard, not even ones they'd support. Furthermore Keith didn't say he
wanted the change, merely that he wouldn't object if it were proposed.
> It would be much more productive for all if you worked
> to propose things too.
I have a suggestion: you start the ball rolling by making a submission
to the next Standards meeting, and if other people agree with your ideas
I'm quite sure they'll support them.
> You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
> just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.
And you have an opportunity to prove that you aren't always just
everyone is out to get you, or that any comment on your product is an
attack, but that you can also be constructive.
> I have proposed many things here, besides the extensions of
> lcc-win. Some of them also in comp.std.c.
Well thats nice, but this isn't the Standards meeting room, and at best
all you can get here is quick feedback on how likely other programmers
are to support your suggestion.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Keith Thompson
> Look Keith:
>
> You pointed out that an overflow checking mechanism should also
> include checking for overflow whan a narrowing assignment
> is done, i.e. an integer into a char, etc.
>
> I think that's a good idea. Specifically, you said:
>
> <quote>
> Ok, if it's going to be controlled by a pragma, I wouldn't object to
> using a separate one for conversions. But I would object to adding
> one to the language without the other.
> <end quote>
>
> I answered you then, that it would be nice if you would propose
> the narrowing conversion check, and I would propose the overflow check.
>
> Specifically, I said:
>
> It would be much more productive for all if you worked
> to propose things too.
>
> You answered to almost all the messages I wrote in that thread except
> to that one.
I dislike certain aspects of your proposal, and I'm not interested
in creating a parallel proposal that's consistent with it. My own
preference would be for something similar to an exception-handling
mechanism, probably not as elaborate as C++ or Ada's mechanism.
I might consider putting together a proposal along those lines, but
it's doubtful that I'll have the time.
I note that exception handling mechanisms for C have been proposed
before; I might look over some of those proposals.
> You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
> just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.
>
> I have proposed many things here, besides the extensions of
> lcc-win. Some of them also in comp.std.c.
>
> Maybe is time for you to propose a change to improve the language?
>
> You seemed to agree (together with Sosman) that overflow checking is
> necessary.
>
> Why not getting positive for a change?
"aren't always just destroying"??
"getting positive for a change"??
What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
You've proposed a change to the language. I've spent substantial
time reading it, critiquing it, and suggesting improvements.
And you thank me by insulting me.
If I do choose to propose any change to the C language, I'll do it
when and how I choose, and you will not be involved.
--
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"
jacob navia
>>
>> Why not getting positive for a change?
>
> "aren't always just destroying"??
>
> "getting positive for a change"??
>
> What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>
OK.
Regulars are like that. Go on then.
You seemed to be reasonable sometimes. Actually you are exactly like
heathfield and co.
jacob navia
>
> "aren't always just destroying"??
>
> "getting positive for a change"??
>
> What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>
I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
that he contributes the change in the language the he
himself said would be correct.
The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
a simple regular...
He was forced to confirm what I said: regulars are *unable* to do
anything constructive. The only reason the feel their
existence is to police this group, making all other people
go away.
Many valuable contributors have left this group, as many
have left the language itself. Nobody tries to promote C
in public, groups about C are disbaneded, and we get
the situation in this group. They destroy everything
else.
Nick Keighley
> Keith Thompson a écrit :
> > "aren't always just destroying"??
>
> > "getting positive for a change"??
>
> > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>
> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
which ought to tell you something...
> precisely when in a very courteous message,
!! I really think you actually believe that!
Did you read his post? He'd gone to the trouble to read and criticise
your proposal (criticism isn't a bad thing if it's done with the aim
of improving something).
You then come back with a series of sly digs.
Your fundamental mistake is to treat "the regulars" as a monolithic
group. If you have been sinned against (and you need to grow a much
thicker
skin) by one of your "regulars" and doesn't mean all the people
you call "regulars" are of the same opinion.
You've managed to provoke a very patient man.
Me, I only give 'em a little rope and then that's it.
I particularly object to you inventing my opinions for me- but thats
just
another symptom of your "regulars" obscession.
> I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.
you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
work involved in standardisation.
> The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
> a simple regular...
yeah right
> He was forced to confirm what I said: regulars are *unable* to do
> anything constructive. The only reason the feel their
> existence is to police this group, making all other people
> go away.
more RC
> Many valuable contributors have left this group, as many
> have left the language itself. Nobody tries to promote C
> in public, groups about C are disbaneded, and we get
> the situation in this group. They destroy everything
> else.
yadder yadder ya
Jens Thoms Toerring
> >
> > "getting positive for a change"??
> >
> > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
> >
> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
Perhaps that should make you think a bit.
> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.
Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
here). And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
your compiler.
You seem to have a complete blind spot when you write
something. I can hardly remember posts by you where you
don't insult someone (unless it's in reply to someone
you seem to see as a potential customer). On the other
hand the smallest bit that could remotely be interpreted
as critique of anything you write drives you inevitably
into fits.
> The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
> a simple regular...
> The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
> a simple regular...
Bullshit. You and mostly you alone are constantly behaving
like a spoiled brat and I guess most people are, like me,
fed up with it to the brim. Your logic is always the same:
if someone doesn't immediately supports your hobby-horse idea
of the day, singing halleluya and praising you, then it is
"destroying" and "unproductive" or whatever other invective
just crosses your mind. Technical arguments from people
obviously having a much broader range of experience than you
don't count since what you don't know about doesn't exist
or is irrelevant.
Much luck with your newly-found friend, Mr. Nilges.
*PLONK*
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ j...@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
jacob navia
>> I proposed
>> that he contributes the change in the language the he
>> himself said would be correct.
>
> you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
> work involved in standardisation.
>
Sure, that's why Thompson and the other regs refuse to do anything.
jacob navia
>
> Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
> Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
> your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
> and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
> that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
> newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
> here).
I am talking about taking the positive step of proposing a
change that he himself thinks is necessary.
He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
a change. That would be a break in the idea that C is
perfect as it is and all changes must be banned, as the
politics of the committee seems to be right now.
> And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
> post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
> your compiler.
>
I started a series of tutorials here (that you can
read in the archives) about many parts ofbthe language
that are normally left out. I spoke about debuggers, linkers,
and many other things. My posts were critized as
"off topic", etc by the same people
All my contributions where there isn't any mention of
lcc-win that I do regularly since years are ignored.
[rest of drivel snipped]
Dik T. Winter
> Keith Thompson a �crit :
> >
> > "aren't always just destroying"??
> >
> > "getting positive for a change"??
> >
> > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
> >
>
> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
>
> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.
Very courteous? A message where you accuse Keith of "aren't always
just destrying" and "getting positive for a change"? Saying things
like that to somebody is courteous? Is that perhaps French courtesy?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Richard Heathfield
Actually, despite the fair amount of work involved in standardisation,
at least one of the "regs" - Larry Jones - *is* involved in that
process. How he manages to keep up with clc /and/ do his ISO thing
/and/ put food on the table is beyond me.
If *you* want to change the language, blaming others for not changing
it for you is puerile. Either get involved in ISO or don't get
involved in ISO - your choice. But comp.lang.c per se has no power to
change the language, so lobbying here is fruitless, and a waste of
your time as well as ours.
I note that you have managed to jar off one of the most patient people
in the group. I have never known Keith to use such harsh language
before, ever, despite enormous provocation. It really is time for you
to start thinking straight. (In fact, it's long overdue.) How do you
expect to persuade anyone if you keep insulting them all the time?
--
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
Richard Heathfield
> In article <h8as25$slm$1...@aioe.org> j...@nospam.org writes:
> > Keith Thompson a �crit :
> > >
> > > "aren't always just destroying"??
> > >
> > > "getting positive for a change"??
> > >
> > > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
> > >
> >
> > I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
> >
> > precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> > that he contributes the change in the language the he
> > himself said would be correct.
>
> Very courteous? A message where you accuse Keith of "aren't always
> just destrying" and "getting positive for a change"? Saying things
> like that to somebody is courteous? Is that perhaps French
> courtesy?
No, I don't think so. It is traditional for the English to rubbish the
French, of course, but over the years I have encountered a good few
French people, and I have - with only two exceptions that I can call
to mind - found them to be unfailingly polite, well-mannered, and
courteous.
One of the two exceptions are a 16-year-old exchange student whom my
family hosted for a fortnight or so, and to whom a certain latitude
should perhaps be granted on account of his age (although my family
hosted one such student every year, and the rest were fine).
The other exception is Jacob Navia.
Nick Keighley
> Jens Thoms Toerring a écrit :
> > Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
> > Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
> > your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
> > and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
> > that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
> > newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
> > here).
>
> I am talking about taking the positive step of proposing a
> change that he himself thinks is necessary.
I don't think he actually claimed it was necessary.
He suggested that if you were going to have overflow
detection then potential overflows that you'd
ommitted form your proposal should be included (if
memory serves me right).
> He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
> a change.
I thought he did propose a change..
> That would be a break in the idea that C is
> perfect
this is a strawman of your invention
> as it is and all changes must be banned, as the
> politics of the committee seems to be right now.
your own paranoid delusion
> > And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
>
> > post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
> > your compiler.
>
> I started a series of tutorials here (that you can
> read in the archives) about many parts ofbthe language
> that are normally left out. I spoke about debuggers, linkers,
though interesting topics neither is part of the C language.
You could have posted your tutorials to a web-site and
announced them here. I admit you've have still got *someone*
complaining but you'd have had a lot less rocks thrown at you.
> and many other things. My posts were critized as
> "off topic",
becaus ethey were
> etc by the same people
I won't tolerate. Your "regulars conspiracy group" doesn't exist.
I'm going to call you on this, but not for a while...
> All my contributions where there isn't any mention of
> lcc-win that I do regularly since years are ignored.
...because I'm going to give you a good long rest.
PLONK!
jacob navia
> ...because I'm going to give you a good long rest.
>
> PLONK!
>
>
I hope that you do this. It will nice not hearing from you
again.
jacob navia
How do you
> expect to persuade anyone if you keep insulting them all the time?
>
I did not insult anyone, neither did I call anyone "a jerk"
I am not interested in convincing you of anything, and since
Mr Thompson doesn't want to cooperate in anything productive
it is better he stops answering my messages, as you could do
too.
I will go on posting here whatever I think it is appropiate.
This is not your newsgroup.
Keith Thompson
> Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> "aren't always just destroying"??
>>
>> "getting positive for a change"??
>>
>> What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>
> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
Probably not, but it is fairly rare, and it's something I resort to
only after repeated provocation.
> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.
A "very courteous manner"? Are you serious?
Take a look at the phrases I quoted above. Go back to your previous
article and read them in context. You accused me and the others
of "always just destroying". You told me to get "positive for a
change", ignoring any and all positive contributions I've made here,
*including* trying to help you with your current proposal.
You personally and directly insulted me, and I finally responded in
kind.
[nonsense snipped]
Keith Thompson
> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
> How do you
>> expect to persuade anyone if you keep insulting them all the time?
>
> I did not insult anyone, neither did I call anyone "a jerk"
No, you did not call anyone a "jerk". I called you a jerk.
You did however (a) lump me in with a group you call "the regulars"
and (b) insult that group, and me personally.
And you don't even know it, which is probably the saddest part of
this whole thing.
Here's a direct quote from your previous article:
| You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
| just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.
Imagine that, say, Richard Heathfield or I (you seem to have trouble
telling us apart) had said something like that to you, out of the
blue, in a thread titled "Open letter to Mr. Navia":
jacob, you now have the opportunity to prove that you aren't
always just destroying ...
Wouldn't you feel just a little bit insulted by that?
Or is it only constructive criticism that you find insulting?
Keith Thompson
[...]
> He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
> a change.
I proposed a number of changes to your proposals.
You're welcome.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> [nonsense snipped]
Meme plague! Meme plague! :-)
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
> How do you
>> expect to persuade anyone if you keep insulting them all the time?
>>
>
> I did not insult anyone,
You're wrong. You insulted Keith Thompson.
> neither did I call anyone "a jerk"
Right. You prefer "liar", and "moron", yes?
> I am not interested in convincing you of anything, and since
> Mr Thompson doesn't want to cooperate in anything productive
> it is better he stops answering my messages, as you could do
> too.
To whom I reply is my decision, not yours. Note that the above
contains a factual error - Keith Thompson put forward some
constructive criticisms of your proposal in an attempt to improve it.
You may not see that as being co-operative or productive, but it
*is*. Iterative criticisms can lead to significant improvements.
> I will go on posting here whatever I think it is appropiate.
Nobody is stopping you.
> This is not your newsgroup.
Believe it or not, I already knew that. Were it my newsgroup, the
topic would be a fair bit broader.
Rui Maciel
> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
>
> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.
Your definition of "very courteous" is very odd. In the message you wrote and are referring to you publicly
challenged someone and pressured him to do your bidding while accusing him, along with others, of " always
just destroying". Do you actually believe anyone would interpret such passive-aggressive behavior as being
"very courteous"?
Rui Maciel
Rui Maciel
> OK.
>
> Regulars are like that. Go on then.
>
> You seemed to be reasonable sometimes. Actually you are exactly like
> heathfield and co.
What do you actually gain by acting so childish?
Rui Maciel
Richard Heathfield
He's got his tenses a bit mixed up with "seemed", which is
understandable in a second language, and "sometimes" is obviously a
typo, but apart from that the above appears to me to be a fair claim:
Clearly Jacob Navia thinks that Keith Thompson is a reasonable
person, just like me.
jacob navia
Sure He treats me of "jerk" and I am not courteous enough.
Regulars logic 100%
I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.
That is their mantra. Nothing must be changed. They will surely
say that gets() is bad, but start a discussion in comp.lang.c
or in comp.std.c about why that thing stays in the standard?
Never.
I start always that discussions, and it was from one of those
discussions that I obtained that Gwyn sends at last a proposal
to fix gets().
But noooone of them would start a discussion or do anything
to improve things. I *thought* (for the nth time) that thompson
could propose something and be constructive.
The only thing that he answers is that I am a jerk. Sure, he
criticized my proposal and he read it as he says.
When I invite him to collaborate and stopping being purely negative
he treats me of a jerk.
And you?
I am agressive because he treats me of a jerk.
OK.
It is not worth even to insult you mister.
Seebs
> I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
> or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.
I don't know that I buy the notion that there's a "clique" at all,
but even apart from that... Improving the language is hard, and most of
us aren't in a setting where we have the information we'd need to make
good suggestions.
> But noooone of them would start a discussion or do anything
> to improve things.
"Improve" is a tough call sometimes. Figuring out what changes to make,
and how, is not trivial.
> The only thing that he answers is that I am a jerk. Sure, he
> criticized my proposal and he read it as he says.
>
> When I invite him to collaborate and stopping being purely negative
> he treats me of a jerk.
I haven't seen the proposal. However, there are many proposals I've seen
over the years which were such that there was nothing to collaborate ON;
it was just plain a bad idea.
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Keith Thompson
Attention?
Default User
I have to ask, yet again, why people keep feeding this troll. Is there
really value added to the newsgroup with these constant flamewars with
Mr. Navia?
Brian
jacob navia
>
> I haven't seen the proposal. However, there are many proposals I've seen
> over the years which were such that there was nothing to collaborate ON;
> it was just plain a bad idea.
>
Sure but I wonder if you read this newsgroup...
I have started several threads here and in comp.std.c about fixing
the overflow problem
c = a+b;
if the operation overflows you are not warned and there is no
way to know. Horrible isn't it?
I proposed
#pragma STDC OVERFLOW_CHECK on-off-flag
See the thread "Zero overhead overflow checking"
Note that I wrote now
on-off-flag
and not
on_off_flag
as I had originally because thompson told me it is better with - and
not with _. But beyond that, the first substantive proposal he did was
that there is ALSO an overflow when you say:
char c = integer;
and integer is > CHAR_MAX
That is why I proposed him to do a parallel proposal.
Conclusion:
he treats me of a jerk.
Go figure
Richard Heathfield
> Rui Maciel a �crit :
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
>>>
>>> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
>>> that he contributes the change in the language the he
>>> himself said would be correct.
>>
>> Your definition of "very courteous" is very odd. In the message you
>> wrote and are referring to you publicly challenged someone and
>> pressured him to do your bidding while accusing him, along with
>> others, of " always just destroying". Do you actually believe
>> anyone would interpret such passive-aggressive behavior as being
>> "very courteous"?
>>
>>
>> Rui Maciel
>
> Sure He treats me of "jerk" and I am not courteous enough.
>
> Regulars logic 100%
He snapped *because* you were not courteous enough, over a long
period.
> I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
> or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.
It's the think-clique. Anyone can join provided they can think
straight. One obvious reason you won't see language improvement
suggestions from me in this group is that this is the wrong place to
suggest them. If I suddenly have this wonderful idea for improving C,
comp.lang.c is hardly the place I'd choose to float it - except,
perhaps, for getting the idea shot down in flames (which is what most
"wonderful" ideas really need, and which only a truly wonderful idea
can survive). In any case, I kinda like C the way it is - no, it's
not perfect, but it's imperfect in a comfortable kind of way. I'm not
averse to non-breaking changes, though, provided they're useful and
usable (i.e. actually implemented).
> That is their mantra. Nothing must be changed. They will surely
> say that gets() is bad, but start a discussion in comp.lang.c
> or in comp.std.c about why that thing stays in the standard?
We *know* why it's still in the Standard. It was in the first Standard
because by the time the Internet Worm was unleashed on the Net, it
was a bit late to take gets() out. It was in the second because you
can't just drop stuff without warning - it is formally deprecated
now, which is a prerequisite to dropping it in the future.
> Never.
Why start a discussion where we already know the answer? To test
people, or what?
<snip>
> When I invite him to collaborate and stopping being purely negative
> he treats me of a jerk.
By inviting him to collaborate, you ignored his prior collaboration.
When you accused him of being negative, you were misinterpreting his
positive feedback. In short, you were being a jerk, and he pointed
this out.
> And you?
>
> I am agressive because he treats me of a jerk.
No, you were aggressive /before/ he called you a jerk (or, more
accurately, an arrogant jerk). Not only directly before, either - you
have a long track record of aggression towards those who dare to
disagree with you.
Keith Thompson
Keith Thompson
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
> [nonsense snipped]
>
> Whoops, nothing left!
That was gratuitously snarky of me, and I probably should have kept
it to myself. Sorry about the noise.
Seebs
Not often.
> I have started several threads here and in comp.std.c about fixing
> the overflow problem
> c = a+b;
> if the operation overflows you are not warned and there is no
> way to know. Horrible isn't it?
Times this has ever harmed me:
Maybe two.
Times I've benefitted from code which ran faster because it didn't check
this:
Maybe thirty million.
> as I had originally because thompson told me it is better with - and
> not with _. But beyond that, the first substantive proposal he did was
> that there is ALSO an overflow when you say:
> char c = integer;
>
> and integer is > CHAR_MAX
>
> That is why I proposed him to do a parallel proposal.
I don't see either of these proposals as adding real value.
> Conclusion:
> he treats me of a jerk.
So, basically, he told you he didn't think your idea was a good idea,
and you responded by telling him he should do more work on your idea
so you could get something you wanted without doing all of the work
for it.
And he did not respond favorably.
Wow, that's, uhm. Yeah, I guess that kind of thing happens sometimes.
I pretty much expect, in fact, that any time I tell someone to do unpaid
volunteer work on a task I value which they don't, they're going to
respond unfavorably.
Dik T. Winter
> Rui Maciel a �crit :
> > jacob navia wrote:
> >
> >> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
> >>
> >> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> >> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> >> himself said would be correct.
> >
> > Your definition of "very courteous" is very odd. In the message you wrote and are referring to you publicly
> > challenged someone and pressured him to do your bidding while accusing him, along with others, of " always
> > just destroying". Do you actually believe anyone would interpret such passive-aggressive behavior as being
> > "very courteous"?
> Sure He treats me of "jerk" and I am not courteous enough.
You have the order reversed. First you were not courteous and in answer
to that he retorted in kind and called you a jerk.
Phil Carmody
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> writes:
>> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>> [nonsense snipped]
>>
>> Whoops, nothing left!
>
> That was gratuitously snarky of me, and I probably should have kept
> it to myself. Sorry about the noise.
We've certainly seen similar from Richard and others too. It's just
a slightly verbose, and fully justified, sigh. It proves you're a
human not a robot, don't worry about it. I'm happier knowing that I'm
conversing with humans.
(And mysteriously, the trolls seem to be closer to Markov models...)
Phil
--
Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
Nick Keighley
> Very courteous? A message where you accuse Keith of "aren't always
> just destrying" and "getting positive for a change"? Saying things
> like that to somebody is courteous? Is that perhaps French courtesy?
Parisian?
Nick Keighley
I don't think he's a troll in that he intends to piss people off.
He *is* a compiler implementor and probably technically quite clued
in.
He sometimes has interesting technical points to make.
But he does like the sound of his own voice and he does hate
criticism,
constructive or not.
I'll be trying not to respond to him for a while.
Default User
> On 10 Sep, 22:54, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to ask, yet again, why people keep feeding this troll. Is
> > there really value added to the newsgroup with these constant
> > flamewars with Mr. Navia?
>
> I don't think he's a troll in that he intends to piss people off.
If you're saying that he doesn't intend to rile people up, then I think
I would disagree.
> He is a compiler implementor and probably technically quite clued
> in.
That doesn't prevent him from being a troll.
> He sometimes has interesting technical points to make.
And it's fine to deal with him on that basis. These huge argumentive
threads provide little in the way of technical knowledge to the group.
> I'll be trying not to respond to him for a while.
Brian
Paul N
> I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
> or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.
As no-one seems to have said it, I will - you do appear to be right
here.
You are keen to see the C language develop, and have proposed a number
of changes to the language, which you have discussed here vigorously.
As far as I can tell, no-one else here is in favour of major changes
to the language. (I may of course be wrong about this, particularly as
I don't read comp.std.c which I believe is the correct place for
formal discussions about such changes.) Most people here seem in
favour of either leaving the language exactly as it is, or of only a
bit of mild tinkering. This seems to apply to everyone here - not just
"the regulars" but all the others who post here, regularly or not. I
don't recall seeing much discussion about why people are adverse to
change (though Richard H has said a little in response to your post
above). I presume it is that most people regard C as a "tight"
language, in which the source code can quickly and easily be converted
into compact, fast-running object code, and they worry that adding
extra "bells and whistles" to the language will detract from this. If,
on the other hand, you want to use some of the computer's power to
make life easier for the programmer (and why not? computers are a lot
bigger and faster than they used to be, there should be resources to
spare) and don't mind a bit of "bloat", then there are already
modifications to C that provide useful facilities, notably the
language C++, and people may feel that starting from there is better
than going back to C and striking out a new route from there.
So I don't think you can expect much in the way of support from other
people in the newsgroup for any major changes to the language that you
propose, and neither can you expect the others to be producing
exciting changes in the language of their own. Probably the best you
can expect is for people to comment on your suggestions; and they are
doing so.
I hope this calms things down a little...
Paul.
Mark McIntyre
> Keith Thompson a �crit :
>>>
>>> Why not getting positive for a change?
>>
>> "aren't always just destroying"??
>>
>> "getting positive for a change"??
>>
>> What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>>
>
>
> Regulars are like that. Go on then.
If you don't want to be called a jerk, stop being one. When you
gratuitously insult someone who has actually been commenting
constructively on your posts, you deserve nothing else.
Mark McIntyre
> Nick Keighley a �crit :
>
>>> I proposed
>>> that he contributes the change in the language the he
>>> himself said would be correct.
>>
>> work involved in standardisation.
>>
>
> Sure, that's why Thompson and the other regs refuse to do anything.
Or maybe its because people have day jobs and don't have the time to "do
something" just to satisfy your ego.
Or maybe its because while there's things they'd like to be done
differently, its not important enough to them to take time and money
away from going on holiday, mending the car, paying the bills etc.
Still, you seem to have money and time to burn, go for it.
Mark McIntyre
> Nick Keighley a �crit :
>>
>> PLONK!
>>
>>
>
> I hope that you do this. It will nice not hearing from you
> again.
What you mean is "oh good, now I can't be corrected by you when I make
mistakes and I can pretend I'm perfect".
What a piece of work you are. I can see why you work for yourself. Did
you ever consider running for office? You'd make a great politician -
always full of sh** and fuller of himself, never able to admit error,
always trying to weasel out of his mistakes.
Mark McIntyre
>
> I am talking about taking the positive step of proposing a
> change that he himself thinks is necessary.
Keith didn't say that. You are again deliberately misrepresenting people
Meanwhile Keith has already positively critiqued your comments and
suggested improvements.
Richard Heathfield
McIntyre wrote:
> jacob navia wrote:
>> Nick Keighley a �crit :
>>
>>>> I proposed
>>>> that he contributes the change in the language the he
>>>> himself said would be correct.
>>>
>>> you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
>>> work involved in standardisation.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, that's why Thompson and the other regs refuse to do anything.
>
> Or maybe its because people have day jobs and don't have the time to
> "do something" just to satisfy your ego.
There is, in any case, no obvious widespread agreement over what,
precisely, must be done to change C. Many of us like it pretty much
the way it is. Those who want a radically different language are most
welcome to design their own, but giving it a different name would
help to avoid confusion. Bjarne Stroustrup understood this.
<snip>
Mark McIntyre
> Sure He treats me of "jerk" and I am not courteous enough.
You have that backwards. You were not courteous, and THEN keith called
you a jerk.
Perhaps if instead of making false statements, you stuck to the truth,
you'd be considered less of a jerk by people?
jacob navia
> On 10 Sep, 22:43, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
>> or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.
>
> As no-one seems to have said it, I will - you do appear to be right
> here.
>
> You are keen to see the C language develop, and have proposed a number
> of changes to the language, which you have discussed here vigorously.
>
> As far as I can tell, no-one else here is in favour of major changes
> to the language. (I may of course be wrong about this, particularly as
> I don't read comp.std.c which I believe is the correct place for
> formal discussions about such changes.) Most people here seem in
> favour of either leaving the language exactly as it is, or of only a
> bit of mild tinkering.
Not even the mild tinkering. I have often brought the example of the
asctime() function specification bug where an obvious overflow could
be avoided by dimensioning correctly a buffer or changing the specs
slightly.
I proposed (in comp.std.c) a change to the standard where a few lines
of code were modified.
Most people rejected the idea. asctime() overflows?
That's OK.
> This seems to apply to everyone here - not just
> "the regulars" but all the others who post here, regularly or not. I
> don't recall seeing much discussion about why people are adverse to
> change (though Richard H has said a little in response to your post
> above). I presume it is that most people regard C as a "tight"
> language, in which the source code can quickly and easily be converted
> into compact, fast-running object code, and they worry that adding
> extra "bells and whistles" to the language will detract from this.
Obviously you have a point here. But is this "performance" obsession
justified?
The overflow check that I proposed, for instance brings no measurable
change to the generated code and it will default to "off" so it is
not necessary to pay *anything* in performance terms to have this
optional feature.
Still, absolutely nothing.
> If, on the other hand, you want to use some of the computer's power to
> make life easier for the programmer (and why not? computers are a lot
> bigger and faster than they used to be, there should be resources to
> spare) and don't mind a bit of "bloat", then there are already
> modifications to C that provide useful facilities, notably the
> language C++, and people may feel that starting from there is better
> than going back to C and striking out a new route from there.
>
The problem is that C++ took a route that has led to a language of
such a complexity that not even the creator of the language is able to
modify anything to it. See the "concepts" catastrophe when the
standards committee proposed to add some checking to template
arguments. Not even the creator of the language was able to develop
a solution within a few years time frame.
C, on the other hand, has retained its simplicity, what makes it a
better language because it is easier to learn and understand. My
proposed changes do not change anything in the language itself,
besides some syntactic sugar, or necessary "add-ons" like this overflow
proposal. The objective would be to make a language that is easier
to use (fewer "gotchas") but still simple and extremely fast.
The implementation of C I propose (and where I have implemented all the
changes) proves that it is possible to do it, and that the resulting
language is easier to use because the main problems like string handling
have been solved.
> So I don't think you can expect much in the way of support from other
> people in the newsgroup for any major changes to the language that you
> propose, and neither can you expect the others to be producing
> exciting changes in the language of their own.
Probably. What surprises me is that people (like thompson) that say that
a change would be *correct* and *necessary* (his words) answer in such
an emotional manner when asked to do the minimal effort of a proposal
to the committee.
The result is a committee that is in the same state of animated
suspension like many people in this group, and refuses to change
anything anywhere.
The end result is that C disappears from view. Most people now
think that C is an obsolete, dangerous language full of bugs.
And no, they do not even bother to write about it or to come here
to tell us that, they just do not care.
To put it with the words of Mr Glassborough:
"ACCU continues to have an interest in C but it is hard to demonstrate
that because people seem reluctant to write articles and reluctant to
propose C related presentations for its annual conference. "
Yes, nobody wants to be associated with something as obsolete as C.
This is not at all my opinion, and the reason I want to change things
is to preserve C as a valid language, and a valid option for programming
today.
Only by changing the language and proving it can evolve out of its
current mess (buffer overflows, bad string handling, obsolete library
etc) is there any chance of preserving it.
> Probably the best you
> can expect is for people to comment on your suggestions; and they are
> doing so.
>
Well, maybe you are right and nothing can be done, C is already near
the grave anyway. I remember that troll that said (in this group) that
he was waiting for C programmers to die out. The average age here
is quite high, so no doubt if we go on like this just for a few years
there will be nobody left.
> I hope this calms things down a little...
> Paul.
Beyond this polemic however, is the sad fact that C is being destroyed
because is not allowed to evolve, both because the C++ people believe
they have created or are using a better language, and because the few
C programmers that are left cling to an absolute conservatism that makes
the problems of C even worse.
Keith Thompson
> Paul N a écrit :
>> On 10 Sep, 22:43, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I have never seen any serious proposal from thompson, heathfield
>>> or any others of that clique to improve anything in the language.
>>
>> As no-one seems to have said it, I will - you do appear to be right
>> here.
>>
>> You are keen to see the C language develop, and have proposed a number
>> of changes to the language, which you have discussed here vigorously.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, no-one else here is in favour of major changes
>> to the language. (I may of course be wrong about this, particularly as
>> I don't read comp.std.c which I believe is the correct place for
>> formal discussions about such changes.)
comp.std.c isn't the place for "formal discussions"; it has no
connection to the committee. But it's more appropriate than
comp.lang.c.
>> Most people here seem in
>> favour of either leaving the language exactly as it is, or of only a
>> bit of mild tinkering.
Most people here don't express an opinion on whether or how the
language should be changed. Most people here are trying to use the
language, and have neither the time nor the inclination to worry
about changes that, in the best case, won't show up in compilers
for a decade or more.
> Not even the mild tinkering. I have often brought the example of the
> asctime() function specification bug where an obvious overflow could
> be avoided by dimensioning correctly a buffer or changing the specs
> slightly.
>
> I proposed (in comp.std.c) a change to the standard where a few lines
> of code were modified.
>
> Most people rejected the idea. asctime() overflows?
>
> That's OK.
asctime() does have problems, but you have repeatedly overstated them.
gets() cannot be used safely (unless you have absolute control over
what appears on stdin), and I'm glad that it's being deprecated
and will eventually disappear from the language.
asctime() certainly can be used safely, because its misbehavior
occurs in response to arguments passed to it, which are under the
control of the programmer, not in response to uncontrolled input.
The argument to asctime() is a pointer to a struct tm; if that
struct tm was built from a valid time_t value, as it usually is,
then it's safe until the year 10000. It's only when you call
asctime() with a pointer to a struct tm that you've built yourself
that it can invoke undefined behavior -- and if you're doing that,
you'd better know what you're doing.
I dislike asctime(), and I never use it. I don't particularly like
what it does even when it's used correctly (its output format is a
US-centric one that I personally avoid in preference to YYYY-MM-DD,
and the trailing new-line is absurd). It exists in the language
only for historical reasons. I would support deprecating it and
eventually removing it from the language. I would also support
modifying its definition, even in ways that might change the behavior
of some conforming but contrived code, as long as that change of
behavior is explicitly acknowledged. I just don't think it's that
big a deal. I've heard of a grand total of 1 case where it caused
a problem; I think you, jacob, once ran into problems because you
used it incorrectly. (No offense intended; we all make mistakes.)
And I've said all this before, but apparently that doesn't count,
and you somehow conclude that everyone but you likes overflows.
[...]
> The overflow check that I proposed, for instance brings no measurable
> change to the generated code and it will default to "off" so it is
> not necessary to pay *anything* in performance terms to have this
> optional feature.
>
> Still, absolutely nothing.
"Still, absolutely nothing"? What???
I have spent (and apparently wasted) substantial time discussing
your proposed changes in comp.lang.c and comp.std.c, pointing out
problems and suggesting improvements. If you don't like what I had
to say, that's fine. But don't pretend that there was no response.
comp.std.c has no official connection to the C standard committee;
most members probably don't even read Usenet. I understand that
submitting a proposal to the committee isn't easy -- but the fact
that these newsgroups are not the way to do it is not the fault of
anyone who participates here, and whining about it will not help
your cause.
[...]
> Probably. What surprises me is that people (like thompson) that say that
> a change would be *correct* and *necessary* (his words) answer in such
> an emotional manner when asked to do the minimal effort of a proposal
> to the committee.
I've explained why I'm not currently interested in making a proposal
to the committee as you suggest. My "emotional" response (calling
you an arrogant jerk) was in response to your personal insults,
not to what you asked me to do. And I don't believe I've used
the word "correct" or "necessary" in reference to your proposals;
please don't put words in my mouth.
Oh, and since you've told us before how much grief you've had to
to through when trying to make a proposal to the committee, I'm
surprised by your use of the phrase "minimal effort".
[snip]
Keith Thompson
>> The overflow check that I proposed, for instance brings no measurable
>> change to the generated code and it will default to "off" so it is
>> not necessary to pay *anything* in performance terms to have this
>> optional feature.
>>
>> Still, absolutely nothing.
>
> "Still, absolutely nothing"? What???
>
> I have spent (and apparently wasted) substantial time discussing
> your proposed changes in comp.lang.c and comp.std.c, pointing out
> problems and suggesting improvements. If you don't like what I had
> to say, that's fine. But don't pretend that there was no response.
I should have mentioned that there were plenty of responses to your
proposal from other people, not just me.
Richard Bos
> On 10 Sep, 14:46, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> > Very courteous? =A0A message where you accuse Keith of "aren't always
> > just destrying" and "getting positive for a change"? =A0Saying things
> > like that to somebody is courteous? =A0Is that perhaps French courtesy?
>
> Parisian?
I dunno, the one Parisian I had a face-to-face conversation with was
remarkably civil. Then again, IIRC he wasn't _from_ Paris, he lived
there because of his job.
Richard
Joe Wright
It's not clear that Parisians are actually French.
--
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."
Peter Nilsson
> Keith Thompson a écrit :
> > "aren't always just destroying"??
> >
> > "getting positive for a change"??
> >
> > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>
Which should lead you to examine the cause more closely.
> precisely when in a very courteous message,
You began an open letter with 'Look Keith:' In English,
that's quite an offensive way to start a letter. It can
be read as one step short of 'Look you arsehole.'
So, whilst it may or may not have been your intent to be
courteous, you have again begun a post by insulting the
very person (or people) you intend to persuade.
Keith was good enough to look past that and continue
reading. Of course, what followed later obviously cut
deeper.
Jacob, you are a querulant. Unfortunately, there's no easy
way of dealing with people exhibiting querulant behaviour.
Vexatious claims set up an environment of mutual hostility.
People who choose not to support you directly are not your
enemy, even (and especially) if they actually sympathise
and agree with you. They are simply people with other
priorities. They are entitled to their own priorities.
The sooner you realise and accept that the better.
--
Peter
jacob navia
> You began an open letter with 'Look Keith:' In English,
> that's quite an offensive way to start a letter. It can
> be read as one step short of 'Look you arsehole.'
>
Look Mr Nilsson, surely I do not master all the english
language but just starting with "look keith" is not an
insult in any way, and you can't construct an insult where
there is none.
The problem is that I asked that guy to be positive and try
to make a proposal to modify the language
Accepting that would mean accepting that you can
improve the language and that C is not a fossilized
language of the past like the fossilized group here.
He dispelled immediately any misunderstanding by
*proving* that he belongs to the fossilized group of
programmers that dominates this discussion group.
He *needed* to insult to prove his membership to
that group.
Be it. He is now where he belongs.
I propose that we stop this anyway. My proposal was refused
and that was it. I really do not care a lot about what
that guy thinks of me. It was surprising that's all.
Ben Bacarisse
> Peter Nilsson a écrit :
>> You began an open letter with 'Look Keith:' In English,
>> that's quite an offensive way to start a letter. It can
>> be read as one step short of 'Look you arsehole.'
>>
>
> Look Mr Nilsson, surely I do not master all the english
> language but just starting with "look keith" is not an
> insult in any way, and you can't construct an insult where
> there is none.
Your English is very good, but I don't see how you can argue this
point. That opening (which I see you have deliberately used again) is
rude. There are no two ways about it. I can certainly image that you
did not know that at the time, and it is clear from his explanation
the Keith passed over that, probably because he aware of how hard it
is to control tone in a language that is not your first.
> The problem is that I asked that guy to be positive and try
> to make a proposal to modify the language
Just a heads up: "that guy" is also impolite.
> Accepting that would mean accepting that you can
> improve the language and that C is not a fossilized
> language of the past like the fossilized group here.
Accepting that would mean a lot of work. Not only in what Keith
suggested was missing (overflow on conversion) but your proposal about
overflow itself lacked the kind of technical rigour that a standard
needs. I can imagine that a linked proposal would require a lot of
work on both parts.
> He dispelled immediately any misunderstanding by
> *proving* that he belongs to the fossilized group of
> programmers that dominates this discussion group.
You must have missed the messages where Keith has explained how he'd
like to see C develop. This is understandable if you don't read
everything posted, but if that is the case you should not make
assumptions about what people think.
<snip>
--
Ben.
Keith Thompson
> to make a proposal to modify the language
No, the problem is that you insulted me, and I had had enough.
After spending considerable time and effort trying to *help you*
to improve your own proposal, you challenged me to prove that I am
not "always just destroying".
> Accepting that would mean accepting that you can
> improve the language and that C is not a fossilized
> language of the past like the fossilized group here.
No, accepting that would mean collaborating with you on a proposal
parallel to yours, something I'm not inclined to do. Do you
believe for a moment, given our respective attitudes, that such a
collaboration could work? And what exactly makes you think that
I'm under any obligation to do as you suggest?
> He dispelled immediately any misunderstanding by
> *proving* that he belongs to the fossilized group of
> programmers that dominates this discussion group.
>
> He *needed* to insult to prove his membership to
> that group.
No, I insulted you in response to your insults directed at me.
jacob, if you read this far, stop and think for a moment.
Let's assume for the moment that you did not intend to insult me,
that your article that started this thread was intended to be
entirely positive. You've seen the reaction. You've been told
repeatedly that *I believed* that I had been personally insulted,
and multiple other people believed that supported me in that belief.
Did you spend even a moment considering that you might have actually
insulted me, even if it wasn't intentional? Did it even occur to
you that, writing in a language that isn't your first, you might
have gone too far?
If so many people tell me I'm wrong, my first thought is that
I just might be wrong, not that there's some massive conspiracy
against me.
Just think about it. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge anything
in public. Just go back to your original article, re-read it,
and *think about it*.
> Be it. He is now where he belongs.
>
> I propose that we stop this anyway. My proposal was refused
> and that was it. I really do not care a lot about what
> that guy thinks of me. It was surprising that's all.
You keep proposing that we stop this, but you seem unable to do so.
One way for this to stop is for you to stop posting on this thread.
I'm not telling you to stop, but if you want to, you can.
wolfgang.riedel
I think there might be OS's, that report loss of the significance of
sign bits, -
and those may not only happen by arithmetic operations, but also
by
unsigned shifts, logical or bit operations -
in a bit of a special register.
If so, you are free to provide an accessfunction,
otherwise - you are the compiler writer - I don't think, the language
must provide this -,
but you may in an extension or a library (Where to search after
something complex, look up PL/1).
Wolfgang
Herbert Rosenau
<defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have to ask, yet again, why people keep feeding this troll. Is there
> really value added to the newsgroup with these constant flamewars with
> Mr. Navia?
The best one can do is to blacklist jacob navia as there will be never
some content from him as at best spamming for his properitary producut
that is not even free as he claimed that were.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2R Deutsch ist da!
Tech07
> In <l9zqm.770484$jp1.3...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com>, Mark
> McIntyre wrote:
>
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> Nick Keighley a �crit :
>>>
>>>>> I proposed
>>>>> that he contributes the change in the language the he
>>>>> himself said would be correct.
>>>>
>>>> you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
>>>> work involved in standardisation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, that's why Thompson and the other regs refuse to do anything.
>>
>> Or maybe its because people have day jobs and don't have the time to
>> "do something" just to satisfy your ego.
>
> There is, in any case, no obvious widespread agreement over what,
> precisely, must be done to change C.
They'll put it in your coffin with you when you go? It's your teddybear,
what?
> Many of us like it pretty much the way it is.
Nobody wants to change C. Everyone wants a better language, and they ARE
under development. BUT (!), if you can't understand the concept of
versioning, well, you're not propogandizin' any yute, so stop hyp-mo-tizin'
yerself.
> Those who want a radically different language are most
> welcome to design their own,
They/we are.
> but giving it a different name would
> help to avoid confusion.
Like anyone would want the negative connotation of 'C' in a new language!
Are ya hip?
> Bjarne Stroustrup understood this.
And many more things (he's a rocket scientist, duh). But a lot of critical
things have been learned since then. To me, C and C++ are relics. I just
wish I had another lifetime (or 10, cuz things are repressed to a snail's
pace). I'd rather flip hamburgers than be forced to write C/C++ code. (And
some wonder why engineering enrollment is dwindling?).
Computer programming languages are akin to proprietary rocketships to Mars.
If you are the type to take balloons into innerspace, you may want to
program in C or C++! All aboard the Virginal Titanic: space "flights" for
$250k. ... OK, wrong analogy... Oh, I know: All aboard steam-powered
riverboat, all original as the first steamboat! (For the unknowing, some of
the worst meritime disasters were the dangerous steamboats. The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers have roots in solving the problem of
exploding boilers (yes, steam and heat and stuff is mechanical
engineering)).
So, anyone wanna take a ride on a historic steamboat that is 100% original?
Not me.
(Hey, I could have reached for the "C/C++: is a condom enough protection?"
thrust (maybe if babies are you concern rather than STDs!)).
When I'm bad, I think I may be good. (The creativity has to go somewhere!
Entropy.)
Chris McDonald
> ... (And
>some wonder why engineering enrollment is dwindling?).
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2009/090709/full/nj7252-295d.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-03-17-engineering-computer-enrollment_N.htm
http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/index.php
--
Chris,
Tech07
None of that is relevant. Can you say Tabloidism? (I won't say the worse
thing).
Chris McDonald
Can you say troll?
Those websites are reporting facts collated by others.
Can prove that Engineering and CS enrolments in both
Western and Eastern hemispheres are falling?
--
Chris,
Tech07
> "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> writes:
>
>> Chris McDonald wrote:
>>> "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> writes:
>>>
>>>> ... (And
>>>> some wonder why engineering enrollment is dwindling?).
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2009/090709/full/nj7252-295d.html>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=computer-science-engineering-enroll-2009-03-18
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-03-17-engineering-computer-enrollment_N.htm
>>> http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/index.php
>
>> None of that is relevant. Can you say Tabloidism? (I won't say the
>> worse thing).
>
>
> Can you say troll?
>
> Those websites are reporting facts collated by others.
Hmm. Oh, well, yeah, then,. I believe THAT! Hello! _I_ of course, if you
haven't noticed, don't believe "everything I read".
Propoganda.
cognacc
> Chris McDonald wrote:
> > "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> writes:
>
> >> Chris McDonald wrote:
> >>> "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> writes:
>
> >>>> ... (And
> >>>> some wonder why engineering enrollment is dwindling?).
>
> >>>http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2009/090709/full/nj7252-295d.html>
> >>>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-03-17-engineering-computer-enr...
> >>>http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/index.php
>
> >> None of that is relevant. Can you say Tabloidism? (I won't say the
> >> worse thing).
>
> > Can you say troll?
>
> > Those websites are reporting facts collated by others.
>
> Hmm. Oh, well, yeah, then,. I believe THAT! Hello! _I_ of course, if you
> haven't noticed, don't believe "everything I read".
>
> Propoganda.
and paranoia goes hand in hand, apparently.
Richard Heathfield
Please don't try to confuse the guy with facts. He's not here for
facts. I'm not sure why he /is/ here, but knowledge doesn't appear to
be part of his motivation.
Tech07
Wrong "analysis": I am not a sheeple. "Hello!". I "said". Pfft. No, you are
wrong, I have "evidence" (see your "local" gestapo for the definition of
"evidence").
Tech07
> In <h9uem0$e7c$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
>
>> "Tech07" <tec...@nospam.hia> writes:
>>
>>> ... (And
>>> some wonder why engineering enrollment is dwindling?).
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2009/090709/full/nj7252-295d.html
>>
>>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=computer-science-engineering-enroll-2009-03-18
>>
>>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-03-17-engineering-computer-enrollment_N.htm
>>
>> http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/index.php
>
> Please don't try to confuse the guy with facts. He's not here for
> facts. I'm not sure why he /is/ here, but knowledge doesn't appear to
> be part of his motivation.
"We're just trying to figure out what you are doing".