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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #74666 > unrolled thread

CAlive on Google Groups

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

Contents

  CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:05 -0800
    Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:11 -0800
    Re: CAlive on Google Groups Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-02 19:14 +0100
      Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:20 -0800
        Re: CAlive on Google Groups Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-02 19:23 +0100
          Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:24 -0800
          Re: CAlive on Google Groups James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-02 13:30 -0500
            Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:32 -0800
              Re: CAlive on Google Groups Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-02 18:44 +0000
                Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:46 -0800
                  Re: CAlive on Google Groups Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-11-02 14:04 -0500
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:21 -0800
              Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-02 20:25 +0100
                Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:04 -0800
                  Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-02 23:45 +0100
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 17:50 -0800
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-03 00:52 -0800
                      Re: CAlive on Google Groups fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:46 -0800
                      Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-03 12:59 +0100
                        Re: CAlive on Google Groups gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-03 14:22 +0000
                    Re: CAlive on Google Groups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-03 13:31 +0000
                      Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 11:00 +0100
                        Re: CAlive on Google Groups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:32 +0000
                          Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 13:34 +0100
                            Re: CAlive on Google Groups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 13:00 +0000
                              Re: CAlive on Google Groups Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 06:25 -0800
                                Re: CAlive on Google Groups David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-04 20:52 +0100
                                Re: CAlive on Google Groups fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:49 -0800
                            Re: CAlive on Google Groups James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 08:49 -0500
                              Newsgroups (Was: CAlive on Google Groups) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-04 14:29 +0000
                                Re: Newsgroups Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 19:42 +0000
                                  Re: Newsgroups Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 02:35 -0800
                                    Re: Newsgroups Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:17 +1300
                                      Re: Newsgroups Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-09 18:39 +0000
                                        Re: Newsgroups Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:45 +1300
                                  Re: Newsgroups gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-10 00:13 +0000
                        Re: CAlive on Google Groups Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-04 11:17 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#74753

On 02/11/15 22:45, David Brown wrote:

> Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all
> CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google
> Group.

There are even some people in c.l.c. who would strongly prefer that all 
discussions that aren't about C should take place somewhere else, 
leaving the comp.lang.c newsgroup for discussions that *are* about C. 
Would that really be such a terrible thing? After all, there are tens of 
thousands of newsgroups. *Surely* there are places where such 
discussions are topical? Or, at least, *more* topical than they are 
here. For example, while I would not normally wish "my new language" 
discussions on comp.programming, I would suggest that "my new language" 
articles are a better fit for that newsgroup than for this one.

> And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place

You might be surprised to discover just how lively and engaging C 
discussions can be.

-- 
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]

#74810

On 03/11/15 14:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 02/11/15 22:45, David Brown wrote:
>
>> Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all
>> CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google
>> Group.
>
> There are even some people in c.l.c. who would strongly prefer that all
> discussions that aren't about C should take place somewhere else,
> leaving the comp.lang.c newsgroup for discussions that *are* about C.
> Would that really be such a terrible thing? After all, there are tens of
> thousands of newsgroups. *Surely* there are places where such
> discussions are topical? Or, at least, *more* topical than they are
> here. For example, while I would not normally wish "my new language"
> discussions on comp.programming, I would suggest that "my new language"
> articles are a better fit for that newsgroup than for this one.

When choosing a place to post about a topic, do you post it somewhere 
that it is on topic, or do you post it somewhere where there are people 
that might be able to help or give advice?  The challenge with something 
like CAlive is that there are /no/ good newsgroups (or other discussion 
forums that I know of) where it is on topic, and where there also are 
experienced and helpful developers who could get involved in the 
discussion.  Rick has been told repeatedly that c.l.c. is not the right 
place for CAlive - no one has been able to give him a better 
alternative.  (And have you looked at comp.programming?  Most posts in 
recent times are by the famous Ramine, and he is a write-only poster.)

Now, it seems that Rick has moved over (or is moving over) to a Google 
group for his CAlive discussions.  Either he has drummed up enough 
interest to get others to take part there, or all discussion on CAlive 
will fade away.  So the "problem" will disappear from c.l.c.

>
>> And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place
>
> You might be surprised to discover just how lively and engaging C
> discussions can be.
>

There are certainly a few interesting threads here about C.  And there 
are certainly a few threads that can be very educational, where people 
get generous help from the more experienced and knowledgeable 
programmers.  But there are also many that are extraordinarily tedious 
and long-winded, with regular repetitions of the same material. 
(Sometimes these too can be educational or have interesting points, but 
it's a lot more work.)

As Kenny said, the CAlive discussions have at times been entertaining 
and provoked discussions and thought.  That is not a bad thing, even if 
the relationship with C is thin.  (For my own part, the irony is that 
these discussions have strongly encouraged my interest towards C++.)

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

#74817

On 04/11/15 10:00, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/11/15 14:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 02/11/15 22:45, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that all
>>> CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated Google
>>> Group.
>>
>> There are even some people in c.l.c. who would strongly prefer that all
>> discussions that aren't about C should take place somewhere else,
>> leaving the comp.lang.c newsgroup for discussions that *are* about C.
>> Would that really be such a terrible thing? After all, there are tens of
>> thousands of newsgroups. *Surely* there are places where such
>> discussions are topical? Or, at least, *more* topical than they are
>> here. For example, while I would not normally wish "my new language"
>> discussions on comp.programming, I would suggest that "my new language"
>> articles are a better fit for that newsgroup than for this one.
>
> When choosing a place to post about a topic, do you post it somewhere
> that it is on topic,

Yes.

> or do you post it somewhere where there are people
> that might be able to help or give advice?

Yes. The most likely place where there are people who might be able to 
help or give advice is a newsgroup where the topic of my article is 
topical for that newsgroup.


> The challenge with something
> like CAlive is that there are /no/ good newsgroups (or other discussion
> forums that I know of) where it is on topic, and where there also are
> experienced and helpful developers who could get involved in the
> discussion.  Rick has been told repeatedly that c.l.c. is not the right
> place for CAlive - no one has been able to give him a better
> alternative.

comp.programming is certainly a better alternative.

comp.lang.misc is a possibility, although I don't subscribe to that 
newsgroup so I can't guarantee it.

comp.lang.implementation might also be a possibility (same caveat applies).

> (And have you looked at comp.programming?

Yes, every day.

> Most posts in
> recent times are by the famous Ramine, and he is a write-only poster.)

Yes, I check it regularly (usually to no avail). But have you noticed 
something about comp.programming? When someone actually asks a 
programming question in there, people /do/ respond. It's just that 
hardly anyone asks. I don't know why that is. Until relatively recently, 
comp.programming was a very lively group, and it could yet be rekindled 
(and usefully so) if only people would ask general programming questions 
in there instead of in comp.lang.c.

> Now, it seems that Rick has moved over (or is moving over) to a Google
> group for his CAlive discussions.  Either he has drummed up enough
> interest to get others to take part there, or all discussion on CAlive
> will fade away.  So the "problem" will disappear from c.l.c.

Works for me.

>>> And there are others who would find c.l.c. a drier, duller place
>>
>> You might be surprised to discover just how lively and engaging C
>> discussions can be.
>>
>
> There are certainly a few interesting threads here about C.  And there
> are certainly a few threads that can be very educational, where people
> get generous help from the more experienced and knowledgeable
> programmers.  But there are also many that are extraordinarily tedious
> and long-winded, with regular repetitions of the same material.

Yes, I know. :-)

> (Sometimes these too can be educational or have interesting points, but
> it's a lot more work.)

It is, and nowadays I tend to skip over such discussions, although an 
occasional howler might catch my eye and prompt me to respond briefly.

> As Kenny said, the CAlive discussions have at times been entertaining
> and provoked discussions and thought.  That is not a bad thing, even if
> the relationship with C is thin.  (For my own part, the irony is that
> these discussions have strongly encouraged my interest towards C++.)

<shrug> C++ is a fine language. In fact, it's generally my second choice 
after C (and for some things it's my first choice). But of course 
there's a newsgroup for it, and This Isn't 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]

#74829

On 04/11/15 11:32, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/11/15 10:00, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/11/15 14:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 02/11/15 22:45, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Certainly there are some people in c.l.c. would strongly prefer that
>>>> all
>>>> CAlive discussions take place somewhere else, such as a dedicated
>>>> Google
>>>> Group.
>>>
>>> There are even some people in c.l.c. who would strongly prefer that all
>>> discussions that aren't about C should take place somewhere else,
>>> leaving the comp.lang.c newsgroup for discussions that *are* about C.
>>> Would that really be such a terrible thing? After all, there are tens of
>>> thousands of newsgroups. *Surely* there are places where such
>>> discussions are topical? Or, at least, *more* topical than they are
>>> here. For example, while I would not normally wish "my new language"
>>> discussions on comp.programming, I would suggest that "my new language"
>>> articles are a better fit for that newsgroup than for this one.
>>
>> When choosing a place to post about a topic, do you post it somewhere
>> that it is on topic,
>
> Yes.
>
>> or do you post it somewhere where there are people
>> that might be able to help or give advice?
>
> Yes. The most likely place where there are people who might be able to
> help or give advice is a newsgroup where the topic of my article is
> topical for that newsgroup.
>
>
>> The challenge with something
>> like CAlive is that there are /no/ good newsgroups (or other discussion
>> forums that I know of) where it is on topic, and where there also are
>> experienced and helpful developers who could get involved in the
>> discussion.  Rick has been told repeatedly that c.l.c. is not the right
>> place for CAlive - no one has been able to give him a better
>> alternative.
>
> comp.programming is certainly a better alternative.
>
> comp.lang.misc is a possibility, although I don't subscribe to that
> newsgroup so I can't guarantee it.
>
> comp.lang.implementation might also be a possibility (same caveat applies).
>

As I say, there have been many calls for Rick to post his CAlive stuff 
elsewhere - but few suggestions (until now).  But the point is moot now 
anyway, since he has started his google group.

>> (And have you looked at comp.programming?
>
> Yes, every day.
>
>> Most posts in
>> recent times are by the famous Ramine, and he is a write-only poster.)
>
> Yes, I check it regularly (usually to no avail). But have you noticed
> something about comp.programming? When someone actually asks a
> programming question in there, people /do/ respond. It's just that
> hardly anyone asks. I don't know why that is. Until relatively recently,
> comp.programming was a very lively group, and it could yet be rekindled
> (and usefully so) if only people would ask general programming questions
> in there instead of in comp.lang.c.

Maybe that's true - I have only looked at it on a few occasions. 
Perhaps I will follow it more, in case something interesting turns up.

One thing I notice about several technical discussion groups is that the 
regulars are very good at helping others, and also get in detailed 
discussions amongst themselves - but they rarely start new threads.  So 
we (I include myself here) rely on other people to pick the starting 
topics for threads.  It is strange how eager we are to discuss some 
topics after they come up, yet how poor we are at starting the 
conversations ourselves.

>
>> As Kenny said, the CAlive discussions have at times been entertaining
>> and provoked discussions and thought.  That is not a bad thing, even if
>> the relationship with C is thin.  (For my own part, the irony is that
>> these discussions have strongly encouraged my interest towards C++.)
>
> <shrug> C++ is a fine language. In fact, it's generally my second choice
> after C (and for some things it's my first choice). But of course
> there's a newsgroup for it, and This Isn't It.
>

True - most C++ stuff is best discussed in c.l.c++.  However, there is a 
lot of C++ that is strongly related to C, such as comparisons between 
the languages, a discussion of their differences and pros and cons, how 
idioms from one language might translate from or to C (and whether such 
translation makes sense), and of course there is a great deal of code 
that mixes the two languages.  C, and c.l.c., is not a desert island to 
be isolated from everything else.

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

#74833

On 04/11/15 12:34, David Brown wrote:

<snip>

> One thing I notice about several technical discussion groups is that the
> regulars are very good at helping others, and also get in detailed
> discussions amongst themselves - but they rarely start new threads.

Yes, that's absolutely true, and it isn't just in the technical groups. 
I think alt.fan.pratchett, for example, suffers from the same problem 
(if it /is/ a problem). I guess it depends on what we think Usenet is 
really for. Is it just Twitter for Grownups? Do we have to be chatting 
all the time? Or is it a resource that we use when we need to, that we 
supply when we can do so usefully, and that we leave on the shelf at 
other times, only taking it down for an occasional light dusting?


> So
> we (I include myself here) rely on other people to pick the starting
> topics for threads.  It is strange how eager we are to discuss some
> topics after they come up, yet how poor we are at starting the
> conversations ourselves.

Well, there's a good reason for that. If someone needs to know how 
strtoul works, for example, I'm quite content to explain. But if they 
don't, that's fine too. There's no point in *my* asking how strtoul 
works, because I already know. :-)

I can't remember how many threads I've started in comp.lang.c, but I 
doubt whether it's more than a tiny handful (although possibly more than 
the average?). I'm much more likely to start a thread in, say, sci.crypt.

<snip>

> C, and c.l.c., is not a desert island to
> be isolated from everything else.

And therefore never send to know for whom the Bell tools:
they're tools for C.

-- 
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]

#74839

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:00:28 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/11/15 12:34, David Brown wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > One thing I notice about several technical discussion groups is that the
> > regulars are very good at helping others, and also get in detailed
> > discussions amongst themselves - but they rarely start new threads.
> 
> Yes, that's absolutely true, and it isn't just in the technical groups. 
> I think alt.fan.pratchett, for example, suffers from the same problem 
> (if it /is/ a problem). I guess it depends on what we think Usenet is 
> really for. Is it just Twitter for Grownups? Do we have to be chatting 
> all the time? Or is it a resource that we use when we need to, that we 
> supply when we can do so usefully, and that we leave on the shelf at 
> other times, only taking it down for an occasional light dusting?
> 
Generally I post for two reasons, to give help, or to offer an opinion.

Now clearly you can't help with a request until it is made, so the first is
likely to be a followup. The second, well it's possible, but it's a bit presumptuous
to say "I have come to the conclusion that ..." and expect people to be 
interested. However if the topic comes up naturally in discussion, it's
appropriate to give views.

So generally I only start information or announcement threads about my own
projects.

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

#74868

On 04/11/15 15:25, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:00:28 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 04/11/15 12:34, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> One thing I notice about several technical discussion groups is that the
>>> regulars are very good at helping others, and also get in detailed
>>> discussions amongst themselves - but they rarely start new threads.
>>
>> Yes, that's absolutely true, and it isn't just in the technical groups. 
>> I think alt.fan.pratchett, for example, suffers from the same problem 
>> (if it /is/ a problem). I guess it depends on what we think Usenet is 
>> really for. Is it just Twitter for Grownups? Do we have to be chatting 
>> all the time? Or is it a resource that we use when we need to, that we 
>> supply when we can do so usefully, and that we leave on the shelf at 
>> other times, only taking it down for an occasional light dusting?
>>
> Generally I post for two reasons, to give help, or to offer an opinion.

Those two reasons are the most common, I think, for regulars.  Other
reasons include learning through discussion (even the best of us learn
things here on occasion, if somewhat reluctantly :-) ), and simple
entertainment and the pleasure of the discussion or argument.  Usenet
has been described as social media for unsociable people.

> 
> Now clearly you can't help with a request until it is made, so the first is
> likely to be a followup. The second, well it's possible, but it's a bit presumptuous
> to say "I have come to the conclusion that ..." and expect people to be 
> interested. However if the topic comes up naturally in discussion, it's
> appropriate to give views.
> 
> So generally I only start information or announcement threads about my own
> projects.
> 

Maybe we /should/ be a little presumptuous and offer our opinions.  I'll
start (see separate thread).

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

#74875

W dniu środa, 4 listopada 2015 15:25:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 1:00:28 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 04/11/15 12:34, David Brown wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > One thing I notice about several technical discussion groups is that the
> > > regulars are very good at helping others, and also get in detailed
> > > discussions amongst themselves - but they rarely start new threads.
> > 
> > Yes, that's absolutely true, and it isn't just in the technical groups. 
> > I think alt.fan.pratchett, for example, suffers from the same problem 
> > (if it /is/ a problem). I guess it depends on what we think Usenet is 
> > really for. Is it just Twitter for Grownups? Do we have to be chatting 
> > all the time? Or is it a resource that we use when we need to, that we 
> > supply when we can do so usefully, and that we leave on the shelf at 
> > other times, only taking it down for an occasional light dusting?
> > 
> Generally I post for two reasons, to give help, or to offer an opinion.
> 
> Now clearly you can't help with a request until it is made, so the first is
> likely to be a followup. The second, well it's possible, but it's a bit presumptuous
> to say "I have come to the conclusion that ..." and expect people to be 
> interested. However if the topic comes up naturally in discussion, it's
> appropriate to give views.
> 
> So generally I only start information or announcement threads about my own
> projects.

I used usenet for 15 years, then finaly i get bored (this year in 2015)
(im driving on the ends of the fuel here)

two things there
1) im not sure if it is good or wrong [from one point it seems like wrong, it seems like i got nopt enough strength to continue some work; from the other it seems like right (it means time for other activities)

2) the reason: probably the reason is im mostly bored by language topics and my interest moved more to coding game mechanics etc, and i damn cand find approprriate usenet group for that (much less people seem to code this mechanics on some standarised level in comparison to amount of people who
does general c coding) - if i could find such group for game mechanics and tricks i would in great pleasure participate - but im afraid there is no such group at all

this may mean i will probably end up my 15-years long usenet adventures (sad but writing here on topics which are not the ones i really NEED
to do would be probably mistake 

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

#74837

On 11/04/2015 07:34 AM, David Brown wrote:
...
> One thing I notice about several technical discussion groups is that the 
> regulars are very good at helping others, and also get in detailed 
> discussions amongst themselves - but they rarely start new threads.  So 
> we (I include myself here) rely on other people to pick the starting 
> topics for threads.  It is strange how eager we are to discuss some 
> topics after they come up, yet how poor we are at starting the 
> conversations ourselves.

Why do you find that strange? I'm under the delusion that I actually
understand C pretty thoroughly, so what is there for me to discuss? I
only start talking when someone asks a question that I feel competent to
answer, writes an erroneous comment that I feel competent to correct, or
when someone says something that suggests that I might not understand C
as well as I thought.

If I had more spare time, I might be putting together projects in C that
would provoke questions on my part. In particular, one area of C that I
know I don't understand well is the new multi-threaded stuff. A test
project that provided a good justification for multi-threading would be
a great way to learn - but there's nothing like that I could do on the
job, and I have almost no spare time at home.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#74840 — Newsgroups (Was: CAlive on Google Groups)

In article <n1d29b$q9s$1@dont-email.me>,
James Kuyper  <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 11/04/2015 07:34 AM, David Brown wrote:
>...
>> One thing I notice about several technical discussion groups is that the 
>> regulars are very good at helping others, and also get in detailed 
>> discussions amongst themselves - but they rarely start new threads.  So 
>> we (I include myself here) rely on other people to pick the starting 
>> topics for threads.  It is strange how eager we are to discuss some 
>> topics after they come up, yet how poor we are at starting the 
>> conversations ourselves.
>
>Why do you find that strange?

It depends on what the meaning of the word "strange" is.

It is "strange" in the sense of "not desirable" and/or "not the original
design", but it is not "strange" in the sense of "unexpected" and/or "not
predicted, based on observed trends".

Everybody knows why newsgroups are the way they are - that is, just unpaid
help desks, staffed by people with lots of free time on their hands
(generally, because they are way over-qualified for their jobs).  Yes, I
count you in both of these categories (having lots of free time on your
hands and being way over-qualified for the job you're currently in).

Regarding my comment about "not the original design", it is my fond belief
that the original design of Usenet and newsgroups - and the way it should
be - is as a peer-to-peer discussion.  That is, intelligent, capable people
discussing amongst themselves, in a peer-to-peer fashion.  Not what it has
become, which is teacher/student, master/slave, help desk.  I believe that
in the early days, it was this way, but inevitable and predictable
devolution has brought it to what you see today.

-- 
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to
play chess  with a pigeon  --- it knocks the  pieces over, craps  on the
board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

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

#75353 — Re: Newsgroups

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

> Regarding my comment about "not the original design", it is my fond belief
> that the original design of Usenet and newsgroups - and the way it should
> be - is as a peer-to-peer discussion.  That is, intelligent, capable people
> discussing amongst themselves, in a peer-to-peer fashion.  

The trouble with that is what you actually end up with is the
standards-monkeys debating the exact meaning of non-normative footnotes.
It's like theological discussion if you were already in hell.

The reason these standards-monkeys are so keen to keep the scope of the
newsgroup so narrow (no POSIX, no pthreads, no GC, absolutely no Windows
C-API) is because they need to feel like their ability to regurgitate
chapter-and-verse marks them out as the smartest guy in the
room. They've no interest in questions that permit differences of
opinion *Ovt Uv gb Gvz Eragfpu* (see "Malloc() - casting return value of).

[Waits for someone to tell them that there's no capital M in malloc()]

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

#75429 — Re: Newsgroups

There is no capital M in malloc().

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

#75476 — Re: Newsgroups

Chad wrote:
> There is no capital M in malloc().
>
The is no context in your post.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#75483 — Re: Newsgroups

On 09/11/15 18:17, Ian Collins wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>> There is no capital M in malloc().
>>
> The is no context in your post.

No, the is a definite article.

-- 
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]

#75485 — Re: Newsgroups

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 09/11/15 18:17, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Chad wrote:
>>> There is no capital M in malloc().
>>>
>> The is no context in your post.
>
> No, the is a definite article.

See what happens when I post while eating breakfast?

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#75537 — Re: Newsgroups

In article <87oaf4th0v.fsf@gmail.com>, Gareth Owen  <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
>> Regarding my comment about "not the original design", it is my fond belief
>> that the original design of Usenet and newsgroups - and the way it should
>> be - is as a peer-to-peer discussion.  That is, intelligent, capable people
>> discussing amongst themselves, in a peer-to-peer fashion.  
>
>The trouble with that is what you actually end up with is the
>standards-monkeys debating the exact meaning of non-normative footnotes.
>It's like theological discussion if you were already in hell.

You are wise, and possess much knowledge.

>The reason these standards-monkeys are so keen to keep the scope of the
>newsgroup so narrow (no POSIX, no pthreads, no GC, absolutely no Windows
>C-API) is because they need to feel like their ability to regurgitate
>chapter-and-verse marks them out as the smartest guy in the
>room.

Indeed.  Differences of opinion is just, so, 1980s...

-- 
People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve
all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer,
so they'll go and vote for cancer.

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

#74824

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
<snip>
> [...]  Rick has been told repeatedly that
> c.l.c. is not the right place for CAlive - no one has been able to
> give him a better alternative.

There's always comp.lang.misc.  I've not studied it, but it *sounds*
like the right place.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web