Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #58109 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-14 23:05 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-03-18 08:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 233 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-14 23:05 +0100
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-15 13:08 +1300
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 14:49 +0100
Re: New directions in C Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 10:03 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 01:36 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 02:07 -0700
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 11:10 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 10:36 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 11:43 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 11:01 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 13:11 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 12:51 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 06:11 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 13:37 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-16 13:44 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 15:23 +0100
Re: New directions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-16 15:07 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 10:24 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-16 19:36 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 16:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-16 15:51 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 20:41 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:23 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:34 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:37 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:48 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:52 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 16:05 +0100
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-17 18:58 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 12:15 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 12:31 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 16:13 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 09:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 17:59 +0100
Re: New directions in C Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-17 17:16 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 18:24 +0100
Re: New directions in C Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-17 17:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 18:02 +0000
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-17 18:58 +0000
Re: New directions in C fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-03-17 13:04 -0700
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:17 -0700
Re: New directions in C Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-18 14:58 +0000
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 11:38 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-17 22:59 -0400
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-18 09:05 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-18 08:56 -0400
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-18 10:27 +0100
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 09:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 17:44 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:11 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:14 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 05:24 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 16:50 +1300
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 07:21 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-17 01:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 21:22 +1300
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:55 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 22:08 +1300
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 07:01 -0700
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-16 08:27 -0400
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 13:31 +0100
Re: New directions in C Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: New directions in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-16 17:16 +0000
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:15 +0000
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-23 12:41 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-23 10:20 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 12:54 +0100
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 09:30 -0700
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-16 13:14 -0400
Jacob (Was: New directions in C) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-03-16 18:07 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 15:27 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 16:26 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 10:09 -0700
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 11:14 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-17 13:42 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 14:59 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:27 +0100
Re: New directions in C Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 15:34 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 16:18 +0000
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:35 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 01:23 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-22 11:00 +0000
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-29 16:56 +0000
Re: New directions in C asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-29 10:04 -0700
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-29 10:56 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-29 19:30 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-29 12:25 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-29 20:46 +0100
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-29 21:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-30 07:43 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 00:33 +0200
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-06 23:13 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-07 15:46 +1200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 01:37 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-07 21:08 +1200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 02:52 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-07 11:09 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 13:18 +0200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 13:03 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 06:16 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 16:18 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-07 07:37 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 23:31 +0200
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-07 22:40 -0400
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-08 16:57 +1200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 09:14 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 01:52 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-08 21:36 +1200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 02:51 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-08 22:23 +1200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 13:14 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 04:27 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 14:29 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 06:01 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 15:21 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 06:44 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 16:50 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 08:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 10:55 -0700
Re: New directions in C asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-08 22:27 -0700
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-08 11:13 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 21:27 +0200
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-08 13:12 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 09:34 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-09 00:59 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 12:31 +0200
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-09 08:41 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-08 22:48 +0100
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-08 19:03 -0500
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 10:01 +0200
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-09 09:50 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-09 01:18 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 12:32 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-08 08:49 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-08 06:15 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-10 23:18 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-10 23:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-11 15:02 +0200
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-11 06:44 -0700
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-12 16:53 +0200
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-11 10:01 -0500
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-11 09:23 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-11 13:53 -0400
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-12 02:08 -0500
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-12 03:02 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-12 17:07 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-13 01:59 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-13 08:13 -0400
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-13 06:50 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-11 11:57 -0400
Re: New directions in C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-08 08:36 -0400
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-08 15:01 +0200
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-07 04:58 -0500
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-07 11:16 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-07 13:30 +0200
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-07 12:03 +0100
Re: New directions in C Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-07 11:32 -0500
Re: New directions in C glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-07 17:12 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-29 19:41 +0200
Re: New directions in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-29 18:21 +0000
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-29 21:29 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-29 14:26 -0700
Re: New directions in C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-03-29 19:10 -0500
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-30 09:48 +0000
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-30 13:14 +0200
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-06 12:39 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:53 -0700
Re: New directions in C Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2015-04-09 18:17 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 01:08 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:44 -0700
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-10 02:06 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 10:21 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 10:31 +0100
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 11:26 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 11:53 +0100
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 12:22 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 12:46 +0100
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 13:46 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 13:51 +0100
Re: New directions in C Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 18:54 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 13:11 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 14:10 -0700
Re: New directions in C Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-11 23:38 +0100
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 16:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 00:54 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 01:29 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 17:32 -0700
Re: New directions in C Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 23:33 +0000
Re: New directions in C Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-04-10 09:23 -0300
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-10 13:31 +0100
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 13:29 -0500
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 12:12 -0700
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-10 13:46 -0700
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 18:30 -0500
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-11 12:21 -0700
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-12 01:01 -0500
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-12 13:03 -0700
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-12 23:29 +0100
Re: New directions in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-12 18:54 -0700
Re: New directions in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-13 00:52 -0500
Re: New directions in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-13 08:39 -0400
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:02 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:07 +0100
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-17 16:09 +0100
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-21 22:19 +0000
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 18:05 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 15:55 +1300
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 08:48 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-17 03:01 -0700
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 10:32 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 01:32 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 21:33 +1300
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-18 08:55 +0000
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 22:13 +1300
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-18 21:31 +1300
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 09:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 09:49 -0700
Re: New directions in C Lőrinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2015-03-16 10:07 +0100
Re: New directions in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 10:51 +0100
Re: New directions in C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 10:25 +0000
Re: New directions in C Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 11:32 +0000
Re: New directions in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 13:06 +0100
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 05:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-16 13:46 +0000
Re: New directions in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 10:19 -0700
Re: New directions in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 16:37 +1300
Re: New directions in C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 05:42 -0700
Re: New directions in C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 09:41 -0700
Re: New directions in C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-18 08:29 -0700
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 13:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me6if4$1ce$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58186 |
Le 16/03/2015 13:27, James Kuyper a écrit : > On 03/16/2015 07:01 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > ... >> That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that C doesn't force >> us to think about linked lists in a particular way. ... > > Neither does C++. Just because the C++ standard library includes some > potentially useful templates doesn't force you to use them. > Well then, why couldn't the same thing be done in C?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <me6qd0$lci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58187 |
On 3/16/2015 7:31 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 16/03/2015 13:27, James Kuyper a écrit : >> On 03/16/2015 07:01 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> ... >>> That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that C doesn't force >>> us to think about linked lists in a particular way. ... >> Neither does C++. Just because the C++ standard library includes some >> potentially useful templates doesn't force you to use them. > Well then, why couldn't the same thing be done in C? The only thing standing in the way is convincing the committee that the benefits of CCL outweighs the costs of requiring that CCL be implemented. From what I've heard of the committee, that will be a difficult task. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20150316100948.191@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #58205 |
On 2015-03-16, Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 3/16/2015 7:31 AM, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 16/03/2015 13:27, James Kuyper a écrit : >>> On 03/16/2015 07:01 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> ... >>>> That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that C doesn't force >>>> us to think about linked lists in a particular way. ... > >>> Neither does C++. Just because the C++ standard library includes some >>> potentially useful templates doesn't force you to use them. > >> Well then, why couldn't the same thing be done in C? > > The only thing standing in the way is convincing the committee that the > benefits of CCL outweighs the costs of requiring that CCL be > implemented. From what I've heard of the committee, that will be a > difficult task. Features don't have to be required. There is value in specifying features, which are optional. Obviously, a feature you can't rely on being implemented has somewhat a weaker value proposition to a programmer, but there is value in the proposition that if such and such a feature is available, it is available in the form described by the standard. After all, this is the "root proposition" for a language itself. There is no requirement that there be a C language implementation for any given system. But the standard document creates a reference frame such that if there is a C langauge implementation, it has something to conform to. From this standpoint, there is no reason for library extension work in C to have to proceed in the same standard. If you think you can design a great library, useful to C programmers nothing stops you from creating one, and documenting it so sharply that your reference manual could be blessed as an ISO standard almost "as is". There is no practical difference between having such a document "at large" and implementations conforming to that document, versus implementations conforming to some optional chapter in ISO C. A great example of this is POSIX. POSIX describes a set of useful extensions to C, which are fairly platform-independent. These extensions are implemented by multiple vendors, and create real, practical portability that is widely depended upon in practice. POSIX works just fine even though the C stuff in POSIX is not an optional chapter in the ISO C 9899 standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <550ded40.35243453@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58186 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > On 03/16/2015 07:01 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > ... > > That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that C doesn't force > > us to think about linked lists in a particular way. ... > > Neither does C++. Just because the C++ standard library includes some > potentially useful templates doesn't force you to use them. It forces you to know them, though, if you ever want to read someone else's code. I don't need that overhead, which is why I prefer C to C++ and to NaviaC. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-23 12:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5510422B.9070600@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #58606 |
On 03/21/2015 06:15 PM, Richard Bos wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: ... >> Neither does C++. Just because the C++ standard library includes some >> potentially useful templates doesn't force you to use them. > > It forces you to know them, though, if you ever want to read someone > else's code. I don't need that overhead, which is why I prefer C to C++ > and to NaviaC. Do you really save anything by avoiding that overhead? Because C doesn't provide an implementation of linked lists, everyone has to create their own. Therefore, instead of the overhead of learning a single standard library plus a few alternatives, you have to learn lots of different implementations of linked lists. The only way you can avoid having to learn at least one implementation of linked lists is to never work with code that uses them (and that approach works equally well in C as in C++). As long as you have to learn at least one implementation of linked lists, why not learn a standard one that is reasonably well designed, while leaving you free to learn about (and even create) alternative implementations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-23 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7635fc5-f30f-4c89-9816-b55fa199c066@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58763 |
On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 4:41:26 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote: > On 03/21/2015 06:15 PM, Richard Bos wrote: > > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > ... > >> Neither does C++. Just because the C++ standard library includes some > >> potentially useful templates doesn't force you to use them. > > > > It forces you to know them, though, if you ever want to read someone > > else's code. I don't need that overhead, which is why I prefer C to C++ > > and to NaviaC. > > Do you really save anything by avoiding that overhead? Because C doesn't > provide an implementation of linked lists, everyone has to create their > own. Therefore, instead of the overhead of learning a single standard > library plus a few alternatives, you have to learn lots of different > implementations of linked lists. > > The only way you can avoid having to learn at least one implementation > of linked lists is to never work with code that uses them (and that > approach works equally well in C as in C++). As long as you have to > learn at least one implementation of linked lists, why not learn a > standard one that is reasonably well designed, while leaving you free to > learn about (and even create) alternative implementations? > General-purpose implementations tend to be harder to understand than ad hoc code, because they've got to be all things to all men. So you've got weird abstracted syntax, funny games with pre-processor, mangled names to avoid clashes, and what have you. In C, it's so easy and natural to set up a singly-lined list with a "next" pointer that it's hardly worth using a library. A doubly-linked list has a slightly tricky remove, and people have different views on the best way to handle the two ends. But it's still very routine programming. It's not where the program or the programmer is likely to spend much time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me6g7k$btk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58169 |
On 16/03/15 11:36, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/03/15 10:10, jacob navia wrote: >> >> I have been working with this program the last 20 years. >> >> I implemented the C99 standard, and was insulted to no end by the >> regulars here because "C99 was not portable", the only standard they >> would accept was the C89 standard of 1989. > > I am on record as being less than enthusiastic about C99. I will > cheerfully go on record as being less than enthusiastic about C11. I > think C99 remains less portable than C90. Are there any C11 > implementations yet? I don't know. Yes, there are major C11 implementations (such as gcc and clang). I can't say if their implementations are complete, but certainly most of the bits are there. The main reason why it is not worth getting excited about C11 is that there simply isn't much new in it. The multi-threading and atomic support is too little, too complex, and too late. If it had been introduced in C99, it would perhaps be in common use - but now code uses the features provided by whatever OS they use, or gcc atomics, etc. The alignment operators, _Noreturn specifier, and anonymous structs and unions are already supported in various ways be various compilers (and have been for many years). For me, the only really useful addition is a native _Static_assertion instead of having to use ugly macros involving typedefs and arrays of negative size. C99, on the other hand, had quite a number of significant improvements over C89/ANSI - I hate having to go back to ANSI. > > But "insulted"? I think you need to back up that claim if you wish > people to believe it, because it is a most extraordinary claim - why > would anyone insult an implementor for implementing C99? > >> I have implemented a replica of the STL in plain C. I presented it tothe >> committee in Portland. It was rejected after a small discussion of one >> hour. People should use C++. > > If they want the STL, sure they should use C++. The STL is a C++ > library. This is why we have different languages - so that people get > the freedom to make these kinds of choices. Yes, it's true that C++ has > STL and C doesn't, but that doesn't mean that we need to add STL to C. > Rather, it means we get to choose whether we wish to use a language with > STL or a language without it. The pay-off for not having STL is > decreased complexity. > Indeed - the STL is the "Standard Template Library". It doesn't even make sense to have an STL in a language that doesn't support templates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87fv9429bz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #58179 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 16/03/15 11:36, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/03/15 10:10, jacob navia wrote:
>>> I have been working with this program the last 20 years.
>>>
>>> I implemented the C99 standard, and was insulted to no end by the
>>> regulars here because "C99 was not portable", the only standard they
>>> would accept was the C89 standard of 1989.
>>
>> I am on record as being less than enthusiastic about C99. I will
>> cheerfully go on record as being less than enthusiastic about C11. I
>> think C99 remains less portable than C90. Are there any C11
>> implementations yet? I don't know.
>
> Yes, there are major C11 implementations (such as gcc and clang). I
> can't say if their implementations are complete, but certainly most of
> the bits are there.
gcc's C11 status is documented here: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/C11Status
Note that the library is not part of gcc, and systems that use gcc may
use different library implementations. (GNU's glibc is most the most
common library implementation used by Linux-based systems.)
It looks like threading is the biggest missing feature -- but C11 makes
it optional anyway.
(BTW, jacob's assertion that he's been "insulted" for implementing C99
in lcc-win is absurd.)
[...]
--
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]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 13:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55070F79.5090104@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #58215 |
On 03/16/2015 12:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 16/03/15 11:36, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 16/03/15 10:10, jacob navia wrote: >>>> I have been working with this program the last 20 years. >>>> >>>> I implemented the C99 standard, and was insulted to no end by the >>>> regulars here because "C99 was not portable", the only standard they >>>> would accept was the C89 standard of 1989. ... > (BTW, jacob's assertion that he's been "insulted" for implementing C99 > in lcc-win is absurd.) I wonder if he could cite even a single specific message in which he was insulted for that reason? I don't remember any. I've seen him criticized for not fully implementing C99, and for claiming conformance with C99 that had not yet been achieved. I've seen him criticized for claiming C90 conformance for an implementation that supported several C99 features (such as // comments) without generating the one (yes, only one is needed!) diagnostic message that would be mandatory upon the use of those features if his compiler did conform to C90. I've seen people (most notably, Richard Heathfield) correctly pointing out that code which relies upon features that are new in C99 is, as a result, less portable than code that only relies upon the shared subset of C90 and C99. But I don't remember anyone insulting jacob for supporting those features. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 18:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Jacob (Was: New directions in C) |
| Message-ID | <me765n$9de$3@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #58215 |
In article <87fv9429bz.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >(BTW, jacob's assertion that he's been "insulted" for implementing C99 >in lcc-win is absurd.) Not really. I think of it as a language barrier thing. We know that Jacob is not native speaker of English - his English is quite good, but we know it is not his native tongue. As a result, he doesn't interpret things quite exactly the way that native speakers (like most of the CLC regs) do and expect others to do. What I am saying is that CLC regs are very clever and are very careful to maintain "plausible deniability" when they go about insulting people here. They maintain a specific set of word definitions and nuances such that, according to those definitions and nuances, they are not insulting people. But we all know better - we know that their definitions and nuances are absurd (to use your word, Kiki my love) - but we go along for the sake of newsgroup unity (and survival). Jacob, not being a native speaker, tends to interpret what's written to and about him "naturally" (that is, in the usual way - in which the meaning of the words is perfectly obvious), and doesn't quite get with the program as the rest of us do. P.S. As an aside, "Han from China" demonstrated admirably, some time back, how it is always the regs who initiate the insulting, but how cleverly they make it seem like they are the victims. Just like Christians & Republicans... -- For instance, Standard C says that nearly all extensions to C are prohibited. How silly! GCC implements many extensions, some of which were later adopted as part of the standard. If you want these constructs to give an error message as “required” by the standard, you must specify ‘--pedantic’, which was implemented only so that we can say “GCC is a 100% implementation of the standard”, not because there is any reason to actually use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 15:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me6p83$jfm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58169 |
Le 16/03/2015 11:36, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > But "insulted"? I think you need to back up that claim if you wish > people to believe it, because it is a most extraordinary claim - why > would anyone insult an implementor for implementing C99? Mr "teapot", and all the anonymous trolls that were stalking me for years? I endured all that insults in this group, spent my money and time developing the compiler that I distributed for free. I was treated here as a money hungry businessman making a "closed, propprietary product", etc. Mostly the gcc crowd, but in this group there were also the fans of Mr Heathfield and Thompson... But obviously you never saw those messages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 16:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me6slv$use$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58204 |
On 16/03/15 15:27, jacob navia wrote: > Le 16/03/2015 11:36, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> But "insulted"? I think you need to back up that claim if you wish >> people to believe it, because it is a most extraordinary claim - why >> would anyone insult an implementor for implementing C99? > > Mr "teapot", and all the anonymous trolls that were stalking me for years? > > I endured all that insults in this group, spent my money and time > developing the compiler that I distributed for free. > > I was treated here as a money hungry businessman making a "closed, > propprietary product", etc. You /do/ make a closed, proprietary product, running only on a closed, proprietary operating system, and with proprietary language extensions and changes. The fact that you allow it to be used for certain types of use for no charge does not make it "free". It is /not/ "free as in beer" software - I cannot download it and use it for free for my programming tasks. It is certainly not "free as in speech" software - the source code is not available under a free software licence (such as the GPL). No one has any problem or disagreement with the licensing or the business model you have chosen. You wrote the code, you are free to distribute it and charge for it in the way you want. Charging money for commercial use is a perfectly reasonable deal. But you are /not/ free to advertise it or describe it as a "free" compiler and development tool. You can call it "trialware", "free for personal use", "free for non-commercial use", or any other accurate term. However, you cannot tell people that it is "free", then demand payment when they use it for commercial purposes. In this newsgroup, I have never seen any post that "insulted" you for this. But I have seen many posts trying to correct you, and to make sure other readers understand the licensing of LCC. And I have seen you /treat/ such posts as though they were insults. (I would not be surprised if you claim that /this/ post is an insult, or part of a c.l.c. conspiracy against you.) I have a great deal of respect for you, and for what you have achieved. I also find some of your ideas for languages interesting (though I think the changes warrant a new "C+" language, rather than extending C itself). I would never use LCC - a proprietary windows-only tool is of no use to me. I would not want to see many of your ideas added to C. But still I respect you and your work here, and your perseverance - and I am greatly impressed that you have managed to make a commercial success for LCC in a very difficult market. But like most people here, I would far rather see you be honest and accurate when describing your tools and their licensing, and I would prefer if you dropped your paranoia about a c.l.c. conspiracy against you, your ideas, and your products. > > Mostly the gcc crowd, but in this group there were also the fans of Mr > Heathfield and Thompson... > > But obviously you never saw those messages. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 10:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16ea447a-b16a-4171-8d1f-252e3ae3ab39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58211 |
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 3:26:47 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > > But like most people here, I would far rather see you be honest and > accurate when describing your tools and their licensing, and I would > prefer if you dropped your paranoia about a c.l.c. conspiracy against > you, your ideas, and your products. > To be fair, Jacob is sometimes ridiculed. lcc is free for personal use, so it's a free compiler to all intents and purposes for most members of this group. I'm an employee, if I want Jacob's compiler for a commercial purpose, my company will pay for it, it won't come out of my personal money. Only if you're the owner of a company and considering using the compiler for a commercial purpose is it not free, which might describe a few people here, but I suspect not the ones who kick up a fuss. Then the compiler extends C. That's necessary for it to have a chance in the marketplace. There's no niche for yet another purely standard C compiler, but people who already use gcc or Microsoft Visual Studio might well want the compiler to take advantage of the extensions. So of course it breaks a few carefully-contrived C programs, there's no other sensible, readable way of implementing most extensions. And of course the extensions to C are, by definition, not standard. But it's drawing topicality to strictly to say that the compiler can't be discussed here. If it had achieved market breakthrough and was a major extension able to support its own newsgroup, like C sharp, then we'd rule it non-topical. But not for embryonic extensions, assuming reasonable adherence to community norms, i.e. not trying to hijack every discussion. Then of course Jacob wants to promote his product and his ideas. I know that Richard Stallman thinks that software should be developed by people working for free, and I submit free code to the community myself, but I also need to earn a living, as do most people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-16 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87bnjs24ji.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #58222 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[snip]
> And of course the extensions to C are, by definition, not
> standard. But it's drawing topicality to strictly to say that the
> compiler can't be discussed here. If it had achieved market
> breakthrough and was a major extension able to support its own
> newsgroup, like C sharp, then we'd rule it non-topical. But not for
> embryonic extensions, assuming reasonable adherence to community
> norms, i.e. not trying to hijack every discussion.
comp.compilers.lcc already exists and is reasonably active, though
not nearly as active as comp.lang.c. It's primarily focused on lcc,
the implementation on which lcc-win was based, but a great deal of
the discussion there concerns lcc-win (and it's perfectly topical).
[...]
I'd say that discussions of proposed changes to the C language
are topical either here or in comp.std.c (I might lean towards
the latter).
--
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]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-17 13:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me97dg$2vr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58222 |
On 16/03/15 18:09, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 3:26:47 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> But like most people here, I would far rather see you be honest and >> accurate when describing your tools and their licensing, and I would >> prefer if you dropped your paranoia about a c.l.c. conspiracy against >> you, your ideas, and your products. >> > To be fair, Jacob is sometimes ridiculed. (Just to be clear here - the discussion here is only in regard to on-topic threads about C. Any ridicule or flames for off-topic subjects is incidental here.) I've seen mostly fairly polite, but firm, disagreement with Jacob - ridicule is, I think, very rare. But I accept Kenny's argument that language or cultural differences may make a post seem stronger or insulting, when it was not aimed in that way. For example, it is not uncommon for Brits to use sarcasm in a light-hearted manner, when other readers take it more seriously. > lcc is free for personal use, so it's a free compiler to all intents and purposes > for most members of this group. I'm an employee, if I want Jacob's compiler > for a commercial purpose, my company will pay for it, it won't come out of > my personal money. Only if you're the owner of a company and considering > using the compiler for a commercial purpose is it not free, which might describe > a few people here, but I suspect not the ones who kick up a fuss. By that argument, I am typing on a free computer, and Windows is a free OS because it comes free with the computer. lcc is not free for personal use - it is zero cost for non-commercial use. That is the only sense in which it is "free", and as long as that is the only sense in which Jacob refers to it as "free", then everyone will be happy. > > Then the compiler extends C. That's necessary for it to have a chance in the > marketplace. There's no niche for yet another purely standard C compiler, but > people who already use gcc or Microsoft Visual Studio might well want the compiler > to take advantage of the extensions. So of course it breaks a few carefully-contrived > C programs, there's no other sensible, readable way of implementing most extensions. I have no problem with Jacob's extended language - but I think it would make sense to give it another name. Even "Extended C" would be fine. He has already made it clear that he thinks the C committee is too slow and conservative (and I don't think that's an unreasonable position) - his changes go beyond C to make a new language. > And of course the extensions to C are, by definition, not standard. But it's drawing > topicality to strictly to say that the compiler can't be discussed here. If it had achieved > market breakthrough and was a major extension able to support its own newsgroup, > like C sharp, then we'd rule it non-topical. But not for embryonic extensions, assuming > reasonable adherence to community norms, i.e. not trying to hijack every discussion. As I noted, I have no objection to discussing his language here. It would make more sense if he made it clearer when he was discussing C (which is based on the standards) and "C+" or "JEC". But ideas for changes to the C language are definitely on topic IMHO, even if most people think the particular changes are a bad idea. > > Then of course Jacob wants to promote his product and his ideas. I know that > Richard Stallman thinks that software should be developed by people working for > free, and I submit free code to the community myself, but I also need to earn a > living, as do most people. > Promoting ideas here is fine. But this is not a commercial newsgroup, and promoting a commercial product is not appropriate. Promoting a free, limited version of a commercial product is more of a grey area, and is probably okay if it is specific to the topic being discussed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-17 14:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me9bv6$7d1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #58283 |
On 17.03.2015 13:42, David Brown wrote: > I've seen mostly fairly polite, but firm, disagreement with Jacob - > ridicule is, I think, very rare. It is not rare, but it's also not uncalled for. For years he has been promoting his container library like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Any critisicm is outright rejected or completely ignored by him. The fact that he went to the C standard comittee, told them about the container libary, got rejected and STILL thinks they're all wrong speaks volumes. Sometimes, if you face SO MUCH resistance, maybe, just maybe the people resisting have a point that is worth acknowledging. Failure to acknowledge that on his side is outright delusional. Cheers, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-17 15:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me9dkv$nji$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58289 |
Le 17/03/2015 14:59, Johannes Bauer a écrit : > On 17.03.2015 13:42, David Brown wrote: > >> I've seen mostly fairly polite, but firm, disagreement with Jacob - >> ridicule is, I think, very rare. > > It is not rare, but it's also not uncalled for. > > For years he has been promoting his container library like it's the best > thing since sliced bread. Any critisicm is outright rejected or > completely ignored by him. > The poeple in this newsgroup are just a small subset of the huge C community. Most of them (including you) have never read my proposal, nor are able to pinpoint any specific problem. The "critics" in this group are just C++ evangelists like you. > The fact that he went to the C standard comittee, told them about the > container libary, got rejected and STILL thinks they're all wrong speaks > volumes. Sometimes, if you face SO MUCH resistance, maybe, just maybe > the people resisting have a point that is worth acknowledging. Failure > to acknowledge that on his side is outright delusional. > But what do you know about my software? About the hundreds of people that give me a positive feedback, propose things, etc? What do you know about my customers, that have supported me all these years? Nothing. You think because I am not popular in USENET nobody cares abot what I do. You are wrong Mister. > Cheers, > Johannes > Yes, Cheers!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-17 15:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me9e1b$bct$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #58298 |
On 17.03.2015 15:27, jacob navia wrote: > The poeple in this newsgroup are just a small subset of the huge C > community. Most of them (including you) have never read my proposal, nor > are able to pinpoint any specific problem. Sure, everyone who disagrees with you hasn't read your stuff or cannot tell you a specific problem. And the people criticizing you are a small, negligible fraction anyways, so they can totally be ignored. Whatever works for you buddy, if it let's you sleep at night. > The "critics" in this group are just C++ evangelists like you. Right, everyone who disagrees with you is a C++ evangelist. Almost forgot that one as well! > But what do you know about my software? About the hundreds of people > that give me a positive feedback, propose things, etc? Hey, I've got an idea: Then why don't you spam all your beloved people who give you positive feedback with your brilliant ideas? I'm sure they'll appreciate dozens of mails about how to change C for the better because it's written by the Genius Himself. > You think because I am not popular in USENET nobody cares abot what I do. No, I don't think that. I think that you're delusional in thinking that all that your proposals are lacking is your personal popularity. You think it's all about you, that you are personally hated and don't even recognize any valid criticizm at all. Anyone criticizing you is either a hater, stupid or both. That is the one distinct feature that makes you a crackpot. Cheers, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-17 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <me9k36$oar$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58298 |
On 17/03/15 14:27, jacob navia wrote [in reply to Johannes Bauer]: <snip> > The "critics" in this group are just C++ evangelists like you. I'm certainly a critic, but I am far from being a C++ evangelist. I therefore serve as a counter-example. Do you want people to take you seriously? Until you learn to discuss things dispassionately, that isn't going to happen. <snip> -- 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]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <550dee7e.35561015@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58298 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: > The "critics" in this group are just C++ evangelists like you. No, no, no. No, jacob, you have this - at least in my case - _exactly the wrong way around_. I don't criticise your proposals because I prefer C++. I criticise them because they move C too far _towards_ C++. I don't like C++. In fact, whatever mockery I may or may not have aimed at you, my insults for C++ have been a great deal more direct and more cutting. You see, I like my languages simple. That's why I like C. It's also why I dislike C++. _And_ it's why I dislike your proposals: because they aim to make C more complex, more elephantine, more baroque, more involved. I want none of that. If you want that, put it in another language, not in my beloved, simple, efficient C. You may have been confused by my telling you that "if you want C++, you know where to find it". But trust me, that's not C++ advocacy. I don't write that because I want more people to use C++ and fewer to use C. I write that because I want _complexity-loving_ people to leave my C alone, and go pester the already complex, already disliked-by-me C++ instead. Admittedly the above may not be true of all your critics in this newsgroup. Admittedly some of them may actually love your proposals but hate C, and be here only to play the /agent provocateur/ and prevent your genius from, once more, elevating C itself to its rightful place above their preferred C++. Maybe. But one thing is certain: this is not true of all of us. Some of us criticise your tack because we _prefer_ C as it is, and think your ideas look too much, not too little, like C++. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web