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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #95831 > unrolled thread

[OT] What can we talk about here?

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

Contents

  [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 22:09 +0800
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-05 14:14 -0400
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:04 +0800
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:15 +0800
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-11-06 19:31 +0100
        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-06 14:07 -0500
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-11-06 20:17 +0100
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 11:56 -0800
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-06 15:01 -0500
              Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 20:32 +0000
              Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? (Was: [OT] What can we talk about here?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-11-07 16:08 +0000
                Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 19:31 +0000
                  Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-11-07 21:17 +0000
                  Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-07 19:13 -0500
                  Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:17 +0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:31 +0800
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:00 -0800
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:06 -0800
      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:08 +0800
        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:22 -0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:31 +0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:37 -0800
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 06:53 -0800
              Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:06 +0800
                Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:12 -0800
                  Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:19 +0800
                    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:22 -0800
                      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:24 +0800
                        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:26 +0800
                          Inheritance and single point of failure "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:28 +0800
                  Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:20 -0800
                    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:22 +0800
                    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:29 -0800
                      [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:36 +0800
                        Re: [OT] fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:46 -0800
                          Re: [OT] fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:49 -0800
                            Re: [OT] Time to sleep! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:51 +0800
                              Re: [OT] Time to sleep! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 23:52 +0800
                      Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:58 -0800
                        Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 01:37 +0800
        Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 14:25 +0000
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:33 +0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:35 +0800
            Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 12:16 -0800
          Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 20:02 +0000
    Re: [OT] What can we talk about here? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-13 09:57 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#95831 — [OT] What can we talk about here?

I surely know we can appreciate the syntax of C like a piece of ancient 
art if not an adult AV. :)

Could we talk about algorithms, like random number generation? Should we?

Could we talk about handling of hardware like Raspberry Pi using C?

Could we talk about other languages that interact with C?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#95840

Subject: [OT] What can we talk about here?

Note 1: your Subject: header should summarize your message. It should 
not be the sole place where you say something. It's not uncommon for 
people to skim right past the Subject: line and then wonder what your 
message is about.

Note 2: topicality questions about the newsgroup in which they are 
posted are always on-topic, therefore the [OT] marker is unnecessary.

You can talk about anything you like here, including a critique of the 
Walkürenritt - it's an unmoderated newsgroup. The right question is 
"What should we talk about here?".

This newsgroup is for discussions about C itself. Whether you should 
discuss any other topic here depends upon what you're trying to achieve:
A) A discussion with a large number of people who are interested in the 
topic you wish to discuss, many of them exceptionally competent to 
discuss that topic.
B) A discussion with a small number of people who aren't very interested 
in your topic, few of whom have any particular competence to discuss it, 
mixed in with complaints from people who are participating in this 
forum, rather than some other forum, precisely because they are NOT 
interested in your topic.

If you prefer B, then comp.lang.c is just as good a place to go as 
misc.fitness.walking for almost all of your discussions, regardless of 
topic. If, on the other hand, you prefer A), then any topic for which a 
more appropriate forum exists should be discussed in that forum, not 
here. Examples:

Questions about the C standard, and proposals for changes to the 
standard (NOT for discussions of the language defined by that standard - 
that's what comp.lang.c is for):
comp.std.c

C++, C#, gnu-C, lcc:
Despite their similarities to C, each of those languages are 
sufficiently different from C that you're better off discussing them is 
a language-specific forum.

Unix, Windows, MacOS:
Unix and C were developed together, and have strong ties to each other. 
However, C is now being used on many other operating systems, and Unix 
is a big enough topic in itself to have MANY specialized forums. While 
Windows is one of the most widely used operating systems used for 
personal computers, it's far from being the only one, and lots of C 
programs are written for systems that aren't personal computers. 
Precisely because it is so widely used, there's lots of specialized 
forums for Windows-related questions.

C is awful, and I've invented my own language which is a major 
improvement on C:
This is a very popular theme lately, and many of the currently most 
prolific participants in this newsgroup post for precisely this reason, 
most of the other messages currently being posted in this forum are by 
people responding to those messages. So if you want to talk with other 
people who feel this way, I unfortunately have to admit that this is a 
good place to find them. I still think such discussions belong in groups 
for discussing new languages. Most of the people posting such messages 
want C to be changed in ways that the C committee would never approve 
of, because the C committee has an image of what C should be that 
conflicts with their ideas. So while proposing such changes on 
comp.std.c would be still slightly more appropriate than proposing them 
here, it's still likely to be unproductive.

On 11/05/2016 10:09 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> I surely know we can appreciate the syntax of C like a piece of ancient
> art if not an adult AV. :)

Significant changes to C, including at the syntactic level, were made as 
recently as 2011, and this is exactly the right place for people to ask 
questions about how to use those new features. I suppose that by some 
standards, 2011 is ancient. For someone like me who first started 
programming in 1976, that seems pretty new.

> Could we talk about algorithms, like random number generation? Should we?

That's best discussed in an algorithms forum.

> Could we talk about handling of hardware like Raspberry Pi using C?

That's best discussed in a forum focused on the Raspberry Pi.

> Could we talk about other languages that interact with C?

I know of two languages that define C interfaces: C++ and Fortran; there 
are probably several others. Since the C standard does not define those 
interfaces, the best places to discuss C++/C interactions is in a C++ 
forum, and similarly for Fortran.

In most other cases, interactions between two different languages are 
highly platform-dependent. For instance, I've seen cases where a 
function named "function" in one language had to be referred to in C as 
"_function", "function_" or "_function_", depending upon which platform 
you were using. That being the case, such interactions are best 
discussed in a forum devoted to the relevant platform.

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

#95906

On 6/11/2016 2:14 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> Note 1: your Subject: header should summarize your message. It should
 > ....

Bookmarked for later reading...

> Significant changes to C, including at the syntactic level, were made as
> recently as 2011, and this is exactly the right place for people to ask
> questions about how to use those new features. I suppose that by some
> standards, 2011 is ancient. For someone like me who first started
> programming in 1976, that seems pretty new.

Which one change is most destructive? :)

> That's best discussed in an algorithms forum.

Which is?

>
> That's best discussed in a forum focused on the Raspberry Pi.

I don't think we got one in Usenet. It's too new.

>
> I know of two languages that define C interfaces: C++ and Fortran; there
> are probably several others. Since the C standard does not define those
> interfaces, the best places to discuss C++/C interactions is in a C++
> forum, and similarly for Fortran.

Clipper the dBase compiler can interact with C. Foxpro for DOS can do it 
as well. Turbo Pascal can interact with Turbo C!

> In most other cases, interactions between two different languages are
> highly platform-dependent. For instance, I've seen cases where a
> function named "function" in one language had to be referred to in C as
> "_function", "function_" or "_function_", depending upon which platform
> you were using. That being the case, such interactions are best
> discussed in a forum devoted to the relevant platform.

I knew it.

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

#95908

On 6/11/2016 2:14 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> In most other cases, interactions between two different languages are
> highly platform-dependent. For instance, I've seen cases where a
> function named "function" in one language had to be referred to in C as
> "_function", "function_" or "_function_", depending upon which platform
> you were using. That being the case, such interactions are best
> discussed in a forum devoted to the relevant platform.

BTW, these are compiler bugs if not limitations and features.

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

#95961

On 05-11-16 19:14, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>
>> Could we talk about algorithms, like random number generation? Should we?
>
> That's best discussed in an algorithms forum.
>
>> Could we talk about handling of hardware like Raspberry Pi using C?
>
> That's best discussed in a forum focused on the Raspberry Pi.


Why should these subjects be discussed 'in a forum',
and not in a newsgroup?

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

#95962

On 11/06/2016 01:31 PM, Luuk wrote:
> On 05-11-16 19:14, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>>
>>> Could we talk about algorithms, like random number generation? Should we?
>>
>> That's best discussed in an algorithms forum.

All of the newsgroups with "algorithm" in their name seem to be 
specialized by topic or by language:

     comp.games.development.programming-algorithms
     comp.graphics.algorithms
     fido7.ru.algorithms
     fr.comp.algorithmes
     japan.sci.algorithm

However, comp.programming should also be a good place to discuss 
algorithms in general. sci.crypt.random-numbers might be a better place 
to discuss random number generation.

In general, you can figure out the most appropriate news group for 
discussing a topic by using Google groups to search for discussions 
using keywords connected to that topic, and finding out which newsgroups 
those discussions occurred on.

>>> Could we talk about handling of hardware like Raspberry Pi using C?
>>
>> That's best discussed in a forum focused on the Raspberry Pi.

When I performed a Google Groups search for Raspberry Pi, it listed 
discussions on many different groups, with comp.lang.c occurring nowhere 
in the first 100 discussions I scanned.

> Why should these subjects be discussed 'in a forum',
> and not in a newsgroup?

A newsgroup is a forum. While I haven't looked into it, the name of the 
comp.sys.raspberry-pi usenet newsgroup sounds like it would be an 
appropriate place to talk about such things. Someone has formed a 
Google-specific Raspberry Pi group
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/raspberry-pi-group>, but it's 
far less active than the usenet newsgroup.

Forum is the more general term, including such things as chat rooms, 
mailing lists, FaceBook, Twitter, and the like. The key thing is 
"focused on the Raspberry Pi", not "forum". I know nothing about the 
Raspberry Pi, but a quick Google search suggests that
<https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/> might be a good place to start.

What's so bizarre about the idea that the best place to discuss a topic 
is a forum dedicated to that topic? Do you go to the butcher shop to buy 
screws? Do you go to the Gym to pray? Do you go to school for dating 
advice (possibly a bad example ;-) )? So, why would you go to 
comp.lang.c rather than comp.sys.raspberry-pi to discuss the raspberry pi?

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

#95963

On 06-11-16 20:07, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> On 11/06/2016 01:31 PM, Luuk wrote:

>> Why should these subjects be discussed 'in a forum',
>> and not in a newsgroup?
>
> A newsgroup is a forum. While I haven't looked into it, the name of the
> comp.sys.raspberry-pi usenet newsgroup sounds like it would be an
> appropriate place to talk about such things. Someone has formed a
> Google-specific Raspberry Pi group
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/raspberry-pi-group>, but it's
> far less active than the usenet newsgroup.
>
> Forum is the more general term, including such things as chat rooms,
> mailing lists, FaceBook, Twitter, and the like. The key thing is
> "focused on the Raspberry Pi", not "forum". I know nothing about the
> Raspberry Pi, but a quick Google search suggests that
> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/> might be a good place to start.
>

A forum is not a usenet newgroup, and will never be.
And also the other way around will a forum never be a usenet newgroup.
Or am i repeating myself here .... ;)

> What's so bizarre about the idea that the best place to discuss a topic
> is a forum dedicated to that topic? Do you go to the butcher shop to buy
> screws? Do you go to the Gym to pray? Do you go to school for dating
> advice (possibly a bad example ;-) )? So, why would you go to
> comp.lang.c rather than comp.sys.raspberry-pi to discuss the raspberry pi?
>

If you wanted to do some programming in c on your pi ....

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

#95966

Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> writes:
> On 06-11-16 20:07, James R. Kuyper wrote:
[...]
>> Forum is the more general term, including such things as chat rooms,
>> mailing lists, FaceBook, Twitter, and the like. The key thing is
>> "focused on the Raspberry Pi", not "forum". I know nothing about the
>> Raspberry Pi, but a quick Google search suggests that
>> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/> might be a good place to start.
>
> A forum is not a usenet newgroup, and will never be.
> And also the other way around will a forum never be a usenet newgroup.
> Or am i repeating myself here .... ;)

Yes, you are, and it didn't make much sense either time.

Mailing lists, chat rooms, and Usenet newsgroups are all different kinds
of forums.  That's just what the word "forum" is generally understood to
mean.  It's a more general term.  Perhaps you could explain your point
more clearly?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#95968

On 11/06/2016 02:17 PM, Luuk wrote:
> On 06-11-16 20:07, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>> On 11/06/2016 01:31 PM, Luuk wrote:
>
>>> Why should these subjects be discussed 'in a forum',
>>> and not in a newsgroup?
>>
>> A newsgroup is a forum. While I haven't looked into it, the name of the
>> comp.sys.raspberry-pi usenet newsgroup sounds like it would be an
>> appropriate place to talk about such things. Someone has formed a
>> Google-specific Raspberry Pi group
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/raspberry-pi-group>, but it's
>> far less active than the usenet newsgroup.
>>
>> Forum is the more general term, including such things as chat rooms,
>> mailing lists, FaceBook, Twitter, and the like. The key thing is
>> "focused on the Raspberry Pi", not "forum". I know nothing about the
>> Raspberry Pi, but a quick Google search suggests that
>> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/> might be a good place to start.
>>
>
> A forum is not a usenet newgroup, and will never be.
> And also the other way around will a forum never be a usenet newgroup.

All usenet newsgroups are forums. Most forums are not usenet newsgroups.

> Or am i repeating myself here .... ;)

No, you're not. "No A is a B" is the converse of "No B is an A", not a 
repeat of it.

The term "forum" predates the internet, the telegraph, the printing 
press, and comes close to predating written communication. It's a far 
more general term than you seem to realize.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forum> Meaning #1: A place for discussion.

If a usenet newsgroup is not "A place for discussion", what is it?

Wiktionary also lists a more modern and specific meaning: "An Internet 
message board where users can post messages regarding one or more topics 
of discussion." But that's only meaning #3, and the existence of that 
meaning doesn't prevent me from using meaning #1 - and meaning #3 comes 
close to being an accurate description of usenet newsgroups.

In fact, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum> claims that "The 
main difference between newsgroups and forums is that additional 
software, a News client, is required to participate in newsgroups 
whereas using a forum requires no additional software beyond the web 
browser." Use of Google Groups to access usenet newsgroups removes that 
difference. There are few, if any, general statements on that web page 
about internet forums which don't accurately describe usenet newsgroups.

And there are, of course, lots of forums which don't involve the 
internet, or indeed electronics in any form.

...
>> advice (possibly a bad example ;-) )? So, why would you go to
>> comp.lang.c rather than comp.sys.raspberry-pi to discuss the raspberry pi?
>>
>
> If you wanted to do some programming in c on your pi ....

If you want advice about C that's not specific to your pi, then 
comp.lang.c is the place to go. If you want advice that's specific to 
your pi, go to
<https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/>, where you'll find that there's a 
forum under Programming that's specifically for C/C++.

Why is it so hard to convince you that the more specialized forum is a 
better place to go?

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

#95972

On 06/11/2016 20:01, James R. Kuyper wrote:

>> If you wanted to do some programming in c on your pi ....
>
> If you want advice about C that's not specific to your pi, then
> comp.lang.c is the place to go. If you want advice that's specific to
> your pi, go to
> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/>, where you'll find that there's a
> forum under Programming that's specifically for C/C++.

And the first thread I dived into included a discussion of "{" placement 
styles!

(It looks an interesting forum actually as I'm doing some RPi work at 
the moment.)

-- 
Bartc

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

#96028 — Here or in a RPi dedicated forum? (Was: [OT] What can we talk about here?)

In article <23ca01ba-bdbc-8205-9491-181aa1240bfb@verizon.net>,
James R. Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
...
>Why is it so hard to convince you that the more specialized forum is a 
>better place to go?

Because it isn't.  Or, to put it another way, it isn't that simple.

The basic problem is that if both sides narrowly define their "appropriate
use", then there is a lot of space between them - basically a "no man's
land" of topics that end up not suitable for either forum.  That's a common
problem with, inter alia, Usenet newsgroups (and online forums in general).

To put it another way, there is a significant difference between:

    1) Programming in C on the Raspberry Pi.
    2) Programming the Raspberry Pi in C.

The point I am making here is that the first of these should be entirely
within "appropriate use" for CLC, but is not really welcome on the RPi
support forum (www.raspberrypi.com/etc).  Over there, they are,
understandably, mostly concerned with the second, which, in practice, means
"It's all about programming the GPIOs".  They are really not interested in
general programming discussions or concerns.

But #1 above is not really acceptable here, because the freakazoids who run
this group (KT, etc al), have defined it out.  They are unwilling to have
any discussion where their sacred language is tarnished by any real work
considerations, like hardware or OS.

Furthermore, one (i.e., a potential CLC poster) might actually believe
that:
    a) Usenet newsgroups are more fun and interesting than web-based forums.
    b) You get better/smarter/more interesting people on Usenet than you do
	on web-based forums.

I.e., there might actually be tangible reasons to prefer Usenet to
web-based stuff.  I personally feel this way, and I suspect many others do
as well.

Finally, note that there *is* an RPi Usenet group, but it is mostly dead.
I do check it out from time-to-time, but I've yet to read anything
interesting there.  I think there just isn't the critical mass necessary to
sustain it here.

-- 
b w r w g y b r y b

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

#96040 — Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum?

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

> Furthermore, one (i.e., a potential CLC poster) might actually believe
> that:
>     a) Usenet newsgroups are more fun and interesting than web-based forums.
>     b) You get better/smarter/more interesting people on Usenet than you do
> 	on web-based forums.

Or, at least, that killfiles make it easier to avoid those with
apparently undiagnosed mental conditions.

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

#96042 — Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum?

In article <877f8fm6i6.fsf@gmail.com>, Gareth Owen  <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
>> Furthermore, one (i.e., a potential CLC poster) might actually believe
>> that:
>>     a) Usenet newsgroups are more fun and interesting than web-based forums.
>>     b) You get better/smarter/more interesting people on Usenet than you do
>> 	on web-based forums.
>
>Or, at least, that killfiles make it easier to avoid those with
>apparently undiagnosed mental conditions.

That.  Or to seek them out.  Most of the fun on CLC is generated by various
nutjobs, like KT and friends (for one sort of insanity) and nutjobs of
another sort like RickH (for a different brand of craziness).

But, yes, the lack of good kill/select facilities on web-based forums is
among the many reasons why they don't work as well as Usenet does.

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:
	http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/WeekendAwayFromHome

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

#96052 — Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum?

On 11/07/2016 02:31 PM, Gareth Owen wrote:
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
>> Furthermore, one (i.e., a potential CLC poster) might actually believe
>> that:
>>     a) Usenet newsgroups are more fun and interesting than web-based forums.
>>     b) You get better/smarter/more interesting people on Usenet than you do
>> 	on web-based forums.

Such beliefs are inherently subjective - if he believes such things, 
it's appropriate for him to act in accordance with those beliefs. 
However, neither belief justifies posting to c.l.c if there's a 
different usenet newsgroup that is a more appropriate forum for 
discussing a given topic.

> Or, at least, that killfiles make it easier to avoid those with
> apparently undiagnosed mental conditions.

I'm not sure how that helps. If someone has a very healthy mental 
condition, which no one has ever diagnosed, why would avoiding them 
improve the discussion? And if you yourself have failed to diagnose them 
as having a particular condition, how do you determine whether they 
should be placed in your kill file? Also, how do you determine (and more 
importantly, why do you care) whether or not someone's mental condition 
has been diagnosed by anyone else?

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

#96056 — Re: Here or in a RPi dedicated forum?

On 8/11/2016 3:31 AM, Gareth Owen wrote:
>
> Or, at least, that killfiles make it easier to avoid those with
> apparently undiagnosed mental conditions.

(undiagnosed mental conditions == disobedience)?
(undiagnosed mental conditions == wrong translation)?

:)

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

#96013

On 7/11/2016 3:07 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> What's so bizarre about the idea that the best place to discuss a topic
> is a forum dedicated to that topic? Do you go to the butcher shop to buy
> screws? Do you go to the Gym to pray? Do you go to school for dating
> advice (possibly a bad example ;-) )? So, why would you go to
> comp.lang.c rather than comp.sys.raspberry-pi to discuss the raspberry pi?

I share your understanding. You don't write C because you wanna pray in 
C. You should have a problem, requiring a solution, to solve using 
algorithms. :)

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

#95922

W dniu sobota, 5 listopada 2016 15:09:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> I surely know we can appreciate the syntax of C like a piece of ancient 
> art if not an adult AV. :)
> 
> Could we talk about algorithms, like random number generation? Should we?
> 
> Could we talk about handling of hardware like Raspberry Pi using C?
> 
> Could we talk about other languages that interact with C?

you can talk here things that this group is able to talk and you cant talk (discuss) things that this group is not able to discuss

mainly this group is used for thompson heathfield and brown to talk on'themselves' - and this is sad becouse thi is not much interesting (one could get rather depressive reading that (from those 3 RH still being maybe slightly least depresive maybe))

you could potentially talk various more live topics (as i tried few times)
like some algorithms and constructions or metaquestions etc but this group seems not much  able to do this (and this is the real reason, not that this would be offtopic etc, (as where reheketedeb blabling would be ontopic) 
that it will not go here)

othervise this group still has some 'higher potential' sometimes i can feel some like good aura when no our simpletonic boors atacked yet deleting and replacing it by its stupidity - and when mood is totally impersonal.. probably also some interesting knowledhge is able to share (but is hard to dig imo - thats i practically left this group and i just glimpse once half a year here)

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

#95923

W dniu sobota, 5 listopada 2016 15:09:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> 
> Could we talk about other languages that interact with C?

i could practically like to discuss javascript here 
(im serious - this is becouse i qould find interesting to discuss javascript on a ground of c-like way of viewing things ) but it will not go from the reason i talked befrore - just not enough people able of interested

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

#95924

On 6/11/2016 10:06 PM, fir wrote:
>
> i could practically like to discuss javascript here
> (im serious - this is becouse i qould find interesting to discuss javascript on a ground of c-like way of viewing things ) but it will not go from the reason i talked befrore - just not enough people able of interested

Javascript syntax does look like C. I think even Java looks like C.

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

#95926

W dniu niedziela, 6 listopada 2016 15:08:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Mr. Man-wai Chang napisał:
> On 6/11/2016 10:06 PM, fir wrote:
> >
> > i could practically like to discuss javascript here
> > (im serious - this is becouse i qould find interesting to discuss javascript on a ground of c-like way of viewing things ) but it will not go from the reason i talked befrore - just not enough people able of interested
> 
> Javascript syntax does look like C. I think even Java looks like C.

some c coders know js but some not (maybe most not, i know it slightly) thats why discussing it could bring value (some people would learn something new, some could have occasion to make some additional observations) - but this group like to discuss thing already knows for 10 years and carefull avoid case to learn somenting new [that is part of some problem of this group i alredy wrote on this]

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web