Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Discarding unneeded object files Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 22:05:05 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 51 Message-ID: <86d0d0657y.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <8636e46j3r.fsf@linuxsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dc2463479761dea98da7667c87edc47e"; logging-data="15778"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/A9XqC0bTVO3t0XTicA3r1dDpwDVkLBJI=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:EGFvm+gVd9/2+3RhHubYWvqnjPM= sha1:V5L67/VxWhFVCiR5GBN1k3YFWW4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:148408 Jorgen Grahn writes: > On Sun, 2019-12-01, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Jorgen Grahn writes: >> >>> On Fri, 2019-11-29, Frederick Gotham wrote: >>> >>>> I have a 3rd party library which is 50 - 100 source files. >>> >>> ... >>> >>> You also posted this to comp.lang.c++. Please don't multipost! >>> >>> It's better to cross-post, i.e. send the same posting to both groups. >>> That way a c.l.c reader can see that a c.l.c++ responded and save >>> himself the trouble, or maybe clarify. You get better answers, and >>> everyone else wastes less time repeating the same information. >> >> IME threads that start off being cross-posted to c.l.c and c.l.c++ >> usually generate more pointless and/or off-topic discussion than >> would have occurred if the original posting had been made separately >> to the individual newsgroups (often called multi-posting). So I >> for one am happy to see that this question was posted separately >> rather than being cross-posted. > > If it had been something likely to trigger a language flamewar > I would have agreed and not recommended cross-posting. My point here is kind of the opposite. In most cases a message cross-posted to c.l.c and c.l.c++ results in very little traffic, or even no traffic, that is simultaneously of interest to both groups. What I see more often is basically separate conversations that are either (a) of interest only to c.l.c, or (b) of interest only to c.l.c++, or (c) not topical in either group but people continue the conversation despite that (these are the worst: typically they last the longest and have the lowest S/N ratio of any of the three types). I propose a rule of thumb: unless a posting is likely to generate a substantial fraction of responses that are simultaneously of interest in both newsgroups, it should not be cross-posted to c.l.c and c.l.c++. (For the record, I read and have interest in both groups, but the interests are separate to their respective group.) > BTW, /if/ one decides to multipost, I think the message should start > with something like "I posted this to the following newsgroups: ..." > so people see that they may be wasting their time by replying. I agree that in some cases this would be helpful. In other cases I shouldn't mind seeing it but I don't think it's always necessary either.