Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #197282 > unrolled thread

Python recompile

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-02 14:35 +0000
    Re: Python recompile Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-03-02 15:54 +0000
      Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-02 16:58 +0000
        Re: Python recompile Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-03-02 17:08 +0000
          Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 08:14 +0000
        Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 12:30 -0500
          Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-02 18:35 +0000
          Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 08:13 +0000
            Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 08:31 +0000
              Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 10:44 +0000
                Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 12:20 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 15:03 +0000
                Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 12:47 +0000
            Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 10:22 -0500
              Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:19 +0000
              Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 11:24 -0500
                Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:26 +0000
                Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 11:39 -0500
                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:56 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-03 18:22 +0100
                      Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:31 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 17:28 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:25 +0000
                      Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:32 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 08:56 +0000
                          Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 09:23 +0000
                            Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 09:57 +0000
                              Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 10:03 +0000
                                Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 10:25 +0000
                                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 11:19 +0000
                                Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 17:42 +0000
                                  Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-04 18:16 +0000
                                    Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-05 09:10 +0000
                                      Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-06 19:21 +0000
                                        Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-07 09:53 +0000
                                        Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 21:26 +0000
                                          Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-07 21:33 +0000
                                          Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-10 14:39 +0000
                                    Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 03:16 +0000
                          Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-04 19:12 -0500
                    Re: Python recompile gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-03 23:42 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 13:29 -0500
                    Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 16:52 -0500
                Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:19 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 13:33 -0500
                    Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 19:15 +0000
                      Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 18:51 -0500
                        Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 00:49 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 02:29 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-04 09:12 +0100
                      Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 11:33 +0000
                        Re: Python recompile Muffley@DinkyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 12:00 +0000
                      Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-04 15:31 +0200
                Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-03 18:28 +0100
                  Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:33 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 18:06 +0000
                Re: Python recompile Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2025-03-06 07:35 +0100
                  Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-06 07:32 +0000
                    Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-06 08:39 +0000
                  Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-06 12:40 -0800
                  Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-07 13:17 -0500
            Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 16:12 +0000
      Re: Python recompile Left Right <olegsivokon@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 23:26 +0100
    Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-02 17:54 +0000
      Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-02 19:15 +0000
      Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 13:38 -0500
        Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 00:42 +0000
          Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 00:46 +0000
          Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 22:24 -0500
        Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-03 17:20 +0000
          Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:28 +0000
          Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 12:57 -0500
          Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 18:02 +0000
          Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 19:37 +0000
    Re: Python recompile (Posting On Python-List Prohibited) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 05:46 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#197322

In article <vq4n05$1d5dv$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0500
>James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>....
>>>>>  That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>>Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>>message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
>
>Only an arrogant idiot would think that errors on linking object files
>generated by a C compiler are not relevant in a C language group.
>
>

Indeed.  And as you see, there is no shortage of arrogant idiots in
comp.lang.c

'Tis always been thus, and always will be.

BTW, I note that this thread is (still!) posted to 2 other groups, besides
CLC, but the main topic of discussion in the thread (the usual topicality
BS) is, of course, only relevant to CLC.

Funny, that.


-- 
The book "1984" used to be a cautionary tale;
Now it is a "how-to" manual.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197317

On 3/3/25 11:39, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> ...
>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>
>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
> 
> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
> responded to by people who are more likely to understand and be
> interested in the contents of the message, and can give you better
> answers to any questions you have. When you post to the wrong group,
> they will be less interested in the message and less capable of giving
> good answers to it.
> However, if you're not interested in getting good answers to your
> questions, and it doesn't bother you that your messages are going to
> people not interested in the topic of your message, by all means post to
> any group you choose. This isn't a moderated group - no one can stop you
> from posting here.
Even if it is topicality, whey people rude and insulting to others in 
this group?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197321

On 3/3/25 13:29, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 11:39, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 11:24, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>> Because what you call intolerance, we call topicality. When you post a
>> message to a group where it is on-topic, the message gets seen and
>> responded to by people who are more likely to understand and be
>> interested in the contents of the message, and can give you better
>> answers to any questions you have. When you post to the wrong group,
>> they will be less interested in the message and less capable of giving
>> good answers to it.
>> However, if you're not interested in getting good answers to your
>> questions, and it doesn't bother you that your messages are going to
>> people not interested in the topic of your message, by all means post to
>> any group you choose. This isn't a moderated group - no one can stop you
>> from posting here.
> Even if it is topicality, whey people rude and insulting to others in 
> this group?

I don't know. I've got most of the rudest people killfiled, so I'm not
exposed to them very much except when someone responds to them. I've
little insight into why they behave the way that they do.

However, the context of your comment suggests that you may consider
something that I said to be rude or insulting. Is that correct? If so,
could you identify what that was? I can assure you that nothing I wrote
in this thread was meant to be rude or insulting.

I'm afraid that I can't make a more general statement to that effect - I
 believe that rudeness is sometimes an appropriate way to inform someone
that they've stepped over the line into unacceptable behavior. "You cut
into the line in front of me!" might be considered rude, but it is also
an appropriate response, if true. Similarly, accusing someone of lying
might be considered insulting, but if they were indeed lying, the insult
is earned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197309

On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> gabbled:
>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as 
>>>>>> it is a question
>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific 
>>>>>> compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>>
>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. 
>>>> Linkers are
>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>>
>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load 
>>> of text.
>>
>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs 
>> wouldn't be
>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer 
>> monitor a
>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem 
>> either.
>>
>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The 
>>>> subject line
>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a 
>>>> Python program,
>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>>
>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue 
>>> was building
>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>>
>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to 
>> comp.lang.c and
>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of 
>> earlier
>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the 
>> message
>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You 
>> might be
>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but 
>> nothing
>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>>
>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>
>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced 
>> the problem
>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't 
>> see.
> Why is this group so intolerant?

Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this 
group topical?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197318

On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> gabbled:
>>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as it is a 
>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific compiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>>>
>>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. Linkers are
>>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>>>
>>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load of text.
>>>
>>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs wouldn't be
>>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer monitor a
>>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem either.
>>>
>>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The subject 
>>>>> line
>>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a Python 
>>>>> program,
>>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue was 
>>>> building
>>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>>>
>>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to comp.lang.c and
>>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of earlier
>>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the message
>>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You might be
>>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but nothing
>>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>>>
>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>
>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
> 
> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this group 
> topical?
> 

A. Because the problem is apparently using the right options on the 
compiler, which seems like a C question to me.
B.Because some people in this group are arrogant. rude, and 
insulting..If the shoe fits, wear it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197319

On 03/03/2025 18:33, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:

<snip>

>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this 
>> group topical?
>>
> 
> A. Because

[...reason...]

Clearly you have no objection to intolerance as long as it's you 
doing it.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197323

On 3/3/25 14:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/03/2025 18:33, geodandw wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>>
>>> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this group 
>>> topical?
>>>
>>
>> A. Because
> 
> [...reason...]
> 
> Clearly you have no objection to intolerance as long as it's you doing it.
> 
Disliking intolerance is not intolerance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197324

On 2025-03-03, geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/3/25 14:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Clearly you have no objection to intolerance as long as it's you doing it.
>> 
> Disliking intolerance is not intolerance.

Disruption of a forum topic is not a protected activity, and
the perpetrators are not members of a protected class.

Intolerance of off-topic disruptors isn't the same as intolerance
of an ethnicity or race, etc.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197326

On 03/03/2025 23:51, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 14:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/03/2025 18:33, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>>>
>>>> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this 
>>>> group topical?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A. Because
>>
>> [...reason...]
>>
>> Clearly you have no objection to intolerance as long as it's 
>> you doing it.
>>
> Disliking intolerance is not intolerance.

What you are failing to tolerate is the wish to have a topical 
group, and intolerance is exactly the right word for your failure 
to respect the longstanding topicality requirements of this group.

If you had earned the right to your intolerance on the matter by 
establishing over many years a longstanding track record of 
helping people with good natured and topical C advice, maybe I'd 
be prepared to regard your opinion with more respect, but I find 
it hard to respect someone who has so little sense of the history 
and experience of this group.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197328

On 03/03/2025 19:33, geodandw wrote:
> On 3/3/25 12:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/03/2025 16:24, geodandw wrote:
>>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:

>>>>   That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the 
>>>> problem
>>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
>> Why are you so intolerant of other people's wish to keep this group 
>> topical?
>>
> 
> A. Because the problem is apparently using the right options on the 
> compiler, which seems like a C question to me.

I don't know what your experience with C is - if you have posted 
anything in c.l.c. that indicates that, it must have been too long ago 
for me to remember.  But a number of people with decades long experience 
of not only working with C, but helping people in c.l.c. with their C 
problems, have made it clear that this is /not/ a C question.  They also 
did their best to help the OP - giving what help they could despite this 
being the wrong place and the question being off-topic, and they did 
their best to redirect the OP to places where he might get more useful help.

> B.Because some people in this group are arrogant. rude, and 
> insulting..If the shoe fits, wear it.

Originally, people /politely/ pointed out that the post was off-topic, 
and the OP was unlikely to get good help here.  Indeed, I don't think 
anyone has been other than polite to the OP.

But there have been two people in this thread who have perhaps been 
rude, arrogant and insulting - insisting that /they/ know better than 
the regulars about what is topical and not topical for the group.  Those 
posters have not in any way been helpful, and are just a waste of 
bandwidth for everyone else.

I don't know what you think you are trying to achieve here.  Do you 
think that your complaints will somehow magically make the OP's problem 
about the C programming language, rather than the build process for a 
particular and specific complex piece of software?  Do you think that by 
posting repeatedly, someone here will suddenly realise they know 
something that could help the OP?  Do you think you will change the 
group topicality?

All you have achieved is annoying some people, and ensuring that the 
thread can't develop topically.

If you want to understand what is topical or not for this group, 
consider if a question could conceivably by used as an example or an 
exercise in a published book about learning or using the C programming 
language.  Then it is probably on-topic.  If you'd only find it in a 
book called "C programming for Windows", or "Systems programming in 
Unix", or "C development with gcc", then it is likely to be too 
specific.  The OP's question is far too niche for any kind of book at 
all - he needs to look at build instructions for Python to understand 
what is going on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197338

On 04/03/2025 08:12, David Brown wrote:

<snip>

> Originally, people /politely/ pointed out that the post was 
> off-topic, and the OP was unlikely to get good help here.  
> Indeed, I don't think anyone has been other than polite to the OP.
> 
> But there have been two people in this thread who have perhaps 
> been rude, arrogant and insulting - insisting that /they/ know 
> better than the regulars about what is topical and not topical 
> for the group.  Those posters have not in any way been helpful,

What did you expect from them? A demonstration of competence?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197339

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 11:33:22 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>On 04/03/2025 08:12, David Brown wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Originally, people /politely/ pointed out that the post was 
>> off-topic, and the OP was unlikely to get good help here.  
>> Indeed, I don't think anyone has been other than polite to the OP.
>> 
>> But there have been two people in this thread who have perhaps 
>> been rude, arrogant and insulting - insisting that /they/ know 
>> better than the regulars about what is topical and not topical 
>> for the group.  Those posters have not in any way been helpful,
>
>What did you expect from them? A demonstration of competence?

Ah, the arrogance just keeps on giving. Define "regulars". I tend to lurk
on a lot of groups and occasionally post and I've been a "regular" on usenet as
a whole since 1992 so I'm pretty used to self important types like you and 
Brown.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197340

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:12:38 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> 
> Originally, people /politely/ pointed out that the post was
> off-topic, and the OP was unlikely to get good help here.  Indeed, I
> don't think anyone has been other than polite to the OP.
> 
> But there have been two people in this thread who have perhaps been 
> rude, arrogant and insulting - insisting that /they/ know better than 
> the regulars about what is topical and not topical for the group.
> Those posters have not in any way been helpful, and are just a waste
> of bandwidth for everyone else.
> 

OP did to himself by cross-posting to comp.lang.c++.
comp.lang.c++ group has some good virtues, but civilized tone of
discussions is not among them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197314

On 03/03/2025 17:24, geodandw wrote:

> Why is this group so intolerant?

These groups (comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ - it's a long time since I 
looked at comp.lang.python, but I expect things are similar there) are 
very tolerant of most posters, but there are few people who seem to 
delight in annoying people and spreading their own confusion.

The posts here are mostly trying to give the OP what little help they 
can, and then direct him towards better sources of information - or they 
are trolls by an anonymous coward who regularly changes his nom de 
guerre because he is killfiled by so many people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197331

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 18:28:20 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>On 03/03/2025 17:24, geodandw wrote:
>
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>
>These groups (comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ - it's a long time since I 
>looked at comp.lang.python, but I expect things are similar there) are 
>very tolerant of most posters, but there are few people who seem to 
>delight in annoying people and spreading their own confusion.
>
>The posts here are mostly trying to give the OP what little help they 
>can, and then direct him towards better sources of information - or they 
>are trolls by an anonymous coward who regularly changes his nom de 
>guerre because he is killfiled by so many people.

"Troll" here being the snowflake definition of the word - ie "someone I
disagree with but am unable to counter his arguments to any great extent"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197343

On 2025-03-04, Loris Bennett <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> At the risk of sounding intolerant, I suggest that the discussion not be
> crossposted comp.lang.python. 

You did not do it in the best way. The way this suggestion is performed
is like this, using a built-in Usenet mechanism:

1. Keep the Newsgroups: line as-is.
   1. a) Unless it contains a ridiculous number of newsgroups,
         in which case consider killfiling the thread rather
         than adding to it, or else trim out obviously
         ridiculous newsgroup choices to get it down to three or four.
2. Add a header called "Followup-To:" to your posting which lists
   the newsgroups where you would like replies to article to be
   directed.
3. Mention in the article of the body that you're doing this,
   for example:

      "I think this discussion doesn't belong in comp.lang.python, so
      I'm setting Followup-To accordingly to omit that group."

Followup-To is exactly that: a suggestion. Users agents can (and do)
prompt the user whether they want to honor Followup-To or ignore it.

Followup-To is much better than just removing newsgroups from the
Newsgroups line, because doing so fragments the thread without warning.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197348

geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> gabbled:
>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as it is a question
>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific compiler.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>> 
>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. Linkers are
>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>> 
>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load of text.
>> 
>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs wouldn't be
>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer monitor a
>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem either.
>> 
>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The subject line
>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a Python program,
>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>> 
>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue was building
>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>> 
>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to comp.lang.c and
>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of earlier
>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the message
>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You might be
>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but nothing
>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>> 
>> That sounds like a C issue to me.
>> 
>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
> Why is this group so intolerant?
> 

Members of this group are quite likely old (only old people remember Usenet
it seems), maybe even retired. Old people are often a bit set in their way
(correcting your grammar all the time, trying to force their political
views on you, etc. etc.)

Also, programming tends to attract people that can handle highly formalized
thinking, and thus also people who have OCD to a higher or lower degree.
Think of them as if they were Sheldon. They probably don‘t see that their
musings about topicality of your question won’t help you at all, they have
simply hijacked your thread to discuss about whether linker problems are
topical in this newsgroup (they could have done this in a separate thread).

I have to admit that this thread turned out to be the most interesting
since a long time, although not for OP. It’s like the ramblings of an old
man that you asked about help with your spark plugs and he ends up talking
about his experiences during WWII. Don‘t take offense, nod politely, and
find someone who’s actually going to help you ;-)

IIRC, there are two different ways of compiling code, position dependent or
position independent (PIC). Apparently you cannot mix these two kinds of
code into a single executable. So if you are using a library that has been
compiled with PIC turned on, you’ll have to compile your code the same way.
There should be a command line parameter/IDE setting to do so, depending on
your toolchain.

Kind regards 
Stuart

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197349

On 06/03/2025 06:35, Stuart Redmann wrote:
> geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> gabbled:
>>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as it is a question
>>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific compiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>>>
>>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. Linkers are
>>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>>>
>>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load of text.
>>>
>>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs wouldn't be
>>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer monitor a
>>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem either.
>>>
>>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The subject line
>>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a Python program,
>>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue was building
>>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>>>
>>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to comp.lang.c and
>>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of earlier
>>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the message
>>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You might be
>>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but nothing
>>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>
>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
> 
> Members of this group are quite likely old (only old people remember Usenet
> it seems), maybe even retired. Old people are often a bit set in their way
> (correcting your grammar all the time, trying to force their political
> views on you, etc. etc.)
> 
> Also, programming tends to attract people that can handle highly formalized
> thinking, and thus also people who have OCD to a higher or lower degree.
> Think of them as if they were Sheldon. They probably don‘t see that their
> musings about topicality of your question won’t help you at all, they have
> simply hijacked your thread to discuss about whether linker problems are
> topical in this newsgroup (they could have done this in a separate thread).
> 
> I have to admit that this thread turned out to be the most interesting
> since a long time, although not for OP. It’s like the ramblings of an old
> man that you asked about help with your spark plugs and he ends up talking
> about his experiences during WWII. Don‘t take offense, nod politely, and
> find someone who’s actually going to help you ;-)

Firstly, you're talking to the wrong guy. The OP - the person who 
actually needs the help - is long gone. Muttley is just the 
juvenile delinquent from round the corner who likes to drop 
litter in the old folks' yards.

But you're right anyway. The OP does indeed need to "find someone 
who’s actually going to help you", which is why he needs to ask 
his question in the kind of group where building Python from 
source is the kind of question that attracts attention from 
experts in that area. So, instead of dead-heading the roses in 
the old folks' gardens, the very best help that Muttley could 
have offered the OP is to direct him to a group that's a better 
fit for the question. Or... hey... if he's so set on turning up 
his noise to annoy everyone *anyway*, why not just use the air 
time to answer the question himself?

Oh, yeah, we know that one, don't we? He can't, because he 
clearly doesn't know the answer, 'cos what kind of jerk who could 
walk the OP through his problem would have wasted so much time 
pissing in flower-beds instead?

> IIRC, there are two different ways of compiling code, position dependent or
> position independent (PIC). Apparently you cannot mix these two kinds of
> code into a single executable. So if you are using a library that has been
> compiled with PIC turned on, you’ll have to compile your code the same way.
> There should be a command line parameter/IDE setting to do so, depending on
> your toolchain.

And IYRI? Presumably in that circumstance you'd hope that a local 
expert would pick up on your error and offer a better steer to 
the OP. Preferably one who knows the ins and outs of the relevant 
toolchain, which is of course independent of the toolchain being 
used (linkers link object code, not source code, so they don't 
give a damn what source language was used).

So whaddya know? Turns out the old farts were right after all. 
How about that?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197350

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:32:33 +0000
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled:
>On 06/03/2025 06:35, Stuart Redmann wrote:
>> I have to admit that this thread turned out to be the most interesting
>> since a long time, although not for OP. It’s like the ramblings of an old
>> man that you asked about help with your spark plugs and he ends up talking
>> about his experiences during WWII. Don‘t take offense, nod politely, and
>> find someone who’s actually going to help you ;-)
>
>Firstly, you're talking to the wrong guy. The OP - the person who 
>actually needs the help - is long gone. Muttley is just the 
>juvenile delinquent from round the corner who likes to drop 
>litter in the old folks' yards.

First time I've been called a juvenile delinquent in probably 40 years
but i'll take it as a complement.

But congratulations on so nicely proving his point for him.

Oh, wait, you won't read this because you supposedly killfiled me since like
a lot of people of your type - if you can't win an argument just ignore the
person who defeated you. Now I wonder which one of us has the more juvenile
behaviour.

>the old folks' gardens, the very best help that Muttley could 
>have offered the OP is to direct him to a group that's a better 
>fit for the question. Or... hey... if he's so set on turning up 
>his noise to annoy everyone *anyway*, why not just use the air 
>time to answer the question himself?

I didn't respond to the OPs question. Only the idiots like you telling him
this wasn't a suitable group for it. Do try to keep up with the thread
grandad.

Congratulations on so comprehensively proving his point.

Don't worry, I'll get off your lawn now! LOL :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197354

On 3/5/2025 10:35 PM, Stuart Redmann wrote:
> geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/3/25 10:22, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2025 08:13, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:30:53 -0500
>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:58:20 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> gabbled:
>>>>>>> First off, this isn't really on-topic for comp.lang.c, as it is a question
>>>>>>> regarding a linker, interacting
>>>>>>> with the results of various options given to a specific compiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a comp.lang.c.linker group?
>>>>>
>>>>> comp.lang.c is about using the C programming language. Linkers are
>>>>> independent of the programming language, and can be used to link
>>>>
>>>> Without compilers and linkers a C program would just be a load of text.
>>>
>>> Without computers, keyboards and monitors most C programs wouldn't be
>>> much use, either. That doesn't make a malfunctioning computer monitor a
>>> C problem. And it doesn't make a linkage problems a C problem either.
>>>
>>>>> together programs written in many different languages. The subject line
>>>>> and the text of the error messages indicate that it's a Python program,
>>>>> so why would a group devoted to C be in any way appropriate?
>>>>
>>>> If you'd taken 2 seconds to look at it you'd realise the issue was building
>>>> the Python source code which is written in C.
>>>
>>> The indentations of the first message cross-posted to comp.lang.c and
>>> comp.lang.c++ suggest that it was the latest in a series of earlier
>>> messages posted somewhere else (comp.lang.python?). Those earlier
>>> messages might have contained additional information. If that
>>> information was relevant, it should have been included when the message
>>> was first cross-posted to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++. You might be
>>> right about it being "Python source code ... written in C", but nothing
>>> in the messages that were posted here makes that obvious.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a C issue to me.
>>>
>>> If it were a C problem, then the C source code that produced the problem
>>> should have been shown. It's hard to debug code that you can't see.
>> Why is this group so intolerant?
>>
> 
> Members of this group are quite likely old (only old people remember Usenet
> it seems), maybe even retired. 

I am 47, kind of old?


> Old people are often a bit set in their way
> (correcting your grammar all the time, trying to force their political
> views on you, etc. etc.)

;^)

> 
> Also, programming tends to attract people that can handle highly formalized
> thinking, and thus also people who have OCD to a higher or lower degree.
> Think of them as if they were Sheldon. They probably don‘t see that their
> musings about topicality of your question won’t help you at all, they have
> simply hijacked your thread to discuss about whether linker problems are
> topical in this newsgroup (they could have done this in a separate thread).
> 
> I have to admit that this thread turned out to be the most interesting
> since a long time, although not for OP. It’s like the ramblings of an old
> man that you asked about help with your spark plugs and he ends up talking
> about his experiences during WWII. Don‘t take offense, nod politely, and
> find someone who’s actually going to help you ;-)
> 
> IIRC, there are two different ways of compiling code, position dependent or
> position independent (PIC). Apparently you cannot mix these two kinds of
> code into a single executable. So if you are using a library that has been
> compiled with PIC turned on, you’ll have to compile your code the same way.
> There should be a command line parameter/IDE setting to do so, depending on
> your toolchain.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web