Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #6809 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-06-24 10:42 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-07-04 17:43 -0400 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 135 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-24 10:42 +0200
Re: References in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-24 02:53 -0700
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-24 22:10 +1200
Re: References in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-24 11:14 +0100
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-24 16:59 +0200
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 09:26 -0400
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-24 20:08 +0200
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-24 11:40 -0700
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 14:53 -0400
Re: References in C jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-06-24 20:44 +0000
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-24 23:09 +0200
Re: References in C Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-06-24 17:38 -0400
Re: References in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-24 22:58 +0100
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 10:11 +1200
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 17:00 -0500
Re: References in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-26 22:55 +0100
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 18:25 -0500
Re: References in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-26 23:38 +0100
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 19:19 -0500
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-27 01:27 +0200
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-26 19:13 -0700
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:50 +1200
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-27 06:55 +0200
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-27 17:10 +1200
Re: References in C lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-06-27 10:04 -0400
Re: References in C jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-06-26 22:54 +0000
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-27 01:29 +0200
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 19:39 -0500
Re: References in C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-27 07:16 +0000
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-27 09:46 +0200
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 12:03 -0400
Re: References in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-27 12:09 -0500
Re: References in C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-27 22:16 +0000
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 11:57 -0400
Re: References in C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-27 22:21 +0000
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 13:59 +1200
Re: References in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-27 07:05 +0000
Re: References in C jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-06-27 20:10 +0000
Re: References in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-27 16:39 -0500
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-26 15:23 -0700
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 18:57 -0500
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-26 19:21 -0700
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 09:40 -0400
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-27 09:00 -0700
Re: References in C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-27 23:15 +0000
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-28 22:50 -0700
Re: References in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-29 17:46 +0000
Re: References in C Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-29 20:23 +0100
Re: References in C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-29 22:35 +0000
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-29 16:52 -0700
Re: References in C Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-03 01:31 +0300
Re: References in C Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 17:20 -0700
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 18:54 -0500
Re: References in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 10:32 -0700
Re: References in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-01 10:19 +0200
Re: References in C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-07-01 19:21 +0000
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-01 12:31 -0700
Re: References in C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-07-01 19:32 +0000
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-01 13:05 -0700
Re: References in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-01 23:58 +0000
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 20:13 -0500
Re: References in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-01 12:44 -0700
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 15:57 -0500
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-03 14:54 -0700
Re: References in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 20:29 -0700
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-04 16:05 -0700
Re: References in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-05 08:32 -0700
Re: References in C Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2011-07-05 15:34 -0400
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-06 15:30 -0700
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-27 13:27 +1200
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 09:02 -0400
Re: References in C "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 18:35 -0400
Re: References in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-26 19:11 -0400
Re: References in C "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 00:52 -0400
Re: References in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 07:56 -0400
Re: References in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-24 22:52 +0100
Re: References in C jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-06-24 23:58 +0000
Re: References in C Tom St Denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-06-24 06:48 -0700
Re: References in C David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 07:14 -0700
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-24 16:58 +0200
Re: References in C Tom St Denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-06-24 09:08 -0700
Re: References in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-24 11:33 -0500
Re: References in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-06-24 17:47 +0000
Re: References in C JG <jgrove24@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-01 14:24 -0700
Re: References in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 04:39 -0700
Re: References in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 16:15 -0700
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-26 11:27 +1200
Re: References in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-25 19:13 -0700
Re: References in C cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-06-26 04:22 +0000
Re: References in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-26 01:31 -0500
Re: References in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-26 00:03 -0700
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-26 13:54 -0500
Re: References in C luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 11:19 -0700
Re: References in C Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-26 08:15 +0100
Re: References in C Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-24 16:08 +0000
Re: References in C Tom St Denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-06-24 11:12 -0700
Re: References in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-24 21:42 +0000
Re: References in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-24 11:49 -0500
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-24 13:17 -0700
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 16:46 -0400
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-24 14:32 -0700
Re: References in C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-25 09:39 +0100
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 17:38 -0400
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 16:33 -0400
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-24 23:04 +0200
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-26 17:53 -0700
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-27 17:04 +1200
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-27 14:28 -0700
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:11 +1200
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-28 16:27 -0700
Re: References in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-29 13:41 -0700
Re: References in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-29 21:15 +0000
Re: References in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 09:26 -0700
Re: References in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 20:55 +0000
Re: References in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 16:20 -0700
Re: References in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 23:45 +0000
Re: References in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-01 07:58 -0400
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-27 10:43 +0200
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-27 08:32 -0700
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-28 11:01 -0700
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-28 22:17 +0200
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-29 09:05 +1200
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-28 22:24 -0700
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-29 01:07 -0700
Re: References in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-29 21:16 +1200
Re: References in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-29 17:46 +0000
Re: References in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-29 12:19 -0700
Re: References in C sandeep <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-07-03 20:53 +0000
Re: References in C Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 14:02 -0700
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-03 14:33 -0700
Re: References in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 00:22 +0200
Re: References in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 13:41 -0700
Re: References in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-07-04 00:00 +0000
Re: References in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 00:20 +0000
Re: References in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 17:43 -0400
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 22:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iudcrq$pdl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7155 |
Le 28/06/11 20:01, Tim Rentsch a écrit : > > More generally, if you want to be successful in advocating > changes to the C language, it's important to hear and appreciate > the opinions and judgments of other people, even when -- or > especially when -- they don't agree with your own. Excuse me if I offended you. I never intended to, and as far as I remember I never insulted or say anything bad about you. I respect of course your opinions, and I do think they are important since I have always answered each one of your remarks. But it is true that I am getting kind of paranoiac lately. I have been trying to improve the language by working and working in this community for around 20 years. The first versions of lcc-win are from 1995, and I started working in this project around 1992. Yes, it must be almost 20 years. I have accomplished nothing. All my proposals were ignored and in this group, a hate campaign started by K Thompson and R Heathfield provoked that most people (in this group) just think I am the "shrewd commercial" that they described. Nevertheless I go on working. I have developed a containers library from scratch with the idea of standardizing it. The specifications make for around 300 pages, all the code for a sample implementation is available. Nothing. Not a single answer in comp.std.c. In this group some people made positive contributions but nobody is working on that besides me. Then, in comp.std.c somebody asks for a small improvement that I implemented in lcc-win, and that we discussed in comp.std.c in 2002... Almost ten years ago, and the same problem resurfaces. And I see as in an ever repeating nightmare that nothing will ever change. The standard is closed now, they just left a window for discussion open for several *months* then they decided to close it. After leaving a gap of 10 years without any discussion. And I could go on with my "examples", but it would be unnecessary. That is why I start getting mad/paranoiac. jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 09:05 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <96uu10FnfiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7164 |
On 06/29/11 08:17 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 28/06/11 20:01, Tim Rentsch a écrit : >> >> More generally, if you want to be successful in advocating >> changes to the C language, it's important to hear and appreciate >> the opinions and judgments of other people, even when -- or >> especially when -- they don't agree with your own. > > Excuse me if I offended you. I never intended to, and as far as I > remember I never insulted or say anything bad about you. > > I respect of course your opinions, and I do think they are > important since I have always answered each one of your remarks. > > But it is true that I am getting kind of paranoiac lately. I have > been trying to improve the language by working and working in this > community for around 20 years. The first versions of lcc-win are > from 1995, and I started working in this project around 1992. Yes, > it must be almost 20 years. You are pushing against a very conservative mindset. Getting any interesting changes accepted is probably even harder since the farcical situation with C99 where >95% of programmers use 5% of the changes and <5% the rest. I think the free thinkers are now working on C++. I'm sure there will be more C++0x compilers by the end of the year than C99 compilers. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny60l8b1j.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7164 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
[...]
> But it is true that I am getting kind of paranoiac lately.
Lately?
> I have
> been trying to improve the language by working and working in this
> community for around 20 years. The first versions of lcc-win are
> from 1995, and I started working in this project around 1992. Yes,
> it must be almost 20 years.
>
> I have accomplished nothing. All my proposals were ignored and in this
> group, a hate campaign started by K Thompson and R Heathfield provoked
> that most people (in this group) just think I am the "shrewd commercial"
> that they described.
[...]
This is a prime example of your -- well, I'm not going to call
it paranoia, since that's a psychological diagnosis that I'm not
qualified to make.
I have not started or participated in any "hate campaign" against
you. I am sick and tired of the false baseless accusations you
have repeatedly made against me.
It's good to see you admit that you've been "getting kind of
paranoiac lately". I hope you'll take the next step and realize
that your personal attacks on me are the result of issues that
exist only in your own mind, not in reality.
Please take a while and *think* about this. I am not your enemy.
Stop pretending that I am.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 01:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfniprp83ig.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #7164 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Le 28/06/11 20:01, Tim Rentsch a @C3{A9}crit :
>>
>> More generally, if you want to be successful in advocating
>> changes to the C language, it's important to hear and appreciate
>> the opinions and judgments of other people, even when -- or
>> especially when -- they don't agree with your own.
>
> Excuse me if I offended you. I never intended to, and as far as I
> remember I never insulted or say anything bad about you.
I wasn't offended, and I didn't feel like you were
insulting me.
> I respect of course your opinions, and I do think they are
> important since I have always answered each one of your remarks.
>
> But it is true that I am getting kind of paranoiac lately. I have
> been trying to improve the language by working and working in this
> community for around 20 years. The first versions of lcc-win are
> from 1995, and I started working in this project around 1992. Yes,
> it must be almost 20 years.
I understand that you want to contribute to C, and
I applaud your desire to do that. I give my comments
in the hope that they will be constructively helpful
in providing value both to you and to the C community.
> I have accomplished nothing. All my proposals were ignored and in this
> group, a hate campaign started by K Thompson and R Heathfield provoked
> that most people (in this group) just think I am the "shrewd commercial"
> that they described.
I don't think that's right, but whether it is or not
it's important to remember that people operate on
perception, not necessarily reality. If people have
the perception that you respond to comments and feedback
in a positive and appreciative way, they are more likely
to want to give useful responses. Conversely, if people
have the perception that a reaction will probably be
personal and negative, they are more likely not to
participate in the discussion. Especially in a newsgroup
setting, all you can do is change your own behavior, and
hope other people notice that and respond positively.
Some will, and some won't, that's just life -- enjoy
the positive changes, and try not to worry about the
non-positive ones.
> Nevertheless I go on working. I have developed a containers library
> from scratch with the idea of standardizing it. The specifications
> make for around 300 pages, all the code for a sample implementation is
> available.
>
> Nothing. Not a single answer in comp.std.c. In this group some people
> made positive contributions but nobody is working on that besides me.
>
> Then, in comp.std.c somebody asks for a small improvement that I
> implemented in lcc-win, and that we discussed in comp.std.c in 2002...
> Almost ten years ago, and the same problem resurfaces. And I see
> as in an ever repeating nightmare that nothing will ever change.
>
> The standard is closed now, they just left a window for discussion
> open for several *months* then they decided to close it. After leaving
> a
> gap of 10 years without any discussion.
>
> And I could go on with my "examples", but it would be unnecessary.
> That is why I start getting mad/paranoiac.
It's important to understand two things in this regard.
The first is that the WG14 committee don't take postings in
comp.std.c as proposals to change the Standard. Oh, it's
possible some committee member would notice something here
and get all excited about it and push it ahead in committee
meetings, but it isn't very likely; they are all busy
people and have lots of other things to do. So whatever
changes you want to propose, if your goal is to get them
considered for incorporation into the Standard then
comp.std.c just isn't the right venue for that.
The second is that changes and additions to the Standard are
made on the basis of what is thought to be valuable to the C
community, and that is very much not the same as what you or I
might think is valuable. I have seen some proposals go
through that IMO are just flat out wrong, and other proposals
languish despite making a lot of sense and (again IMO)
offering a lot of value. That may not be very pleasant but
it's just how things are. The important conclusion is: If
you want to succeed in getting changes into the C standard,
__you must understand what is important to the WG14 committee
and phrase your comments and arguments accordingly__. It
doesn't matter at all whether you think something is a good
idea, or I do, or any other person reading c.s.c does; it
only matters whether people in WG14 think something is a good
idea, and that isn't going to happen unless the proposal is
made in a way that they can hear and understand and appreciate
the value of it. The biggest thing that's missing in what
you're doing is assimilating feedback about proposed features
and using that to modify exactly what it is that's proposed.
So, my suggestion is that you try to get better at hearing
feedback, and more importantly that you modify what you're
working on in response to that feedback. That will make it
far more likely that you will be able to make a contribution
to C that is valued by the C community (and hopefully also
by readers of comp.std.c).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 21:16 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9708rkFfpqU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7189 |
On 06/29/11 08:07 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net> writes: >> >> And I could go on with my "examples", but it would be unnecessary. >> That is why I start getting mad/paranoiac. > > It's important to understand two things in this regard. > <Snip good advice> > > The second is that changes and additions to the Standard are > made on the basis of what is thought to be valuable to the C > community, and that is very much not the same as what you or I > might think is valuable. Oh if only that were true. I do wonder how many of the "C community", which less face it is mainly us embedded programmers these days, have ever used all the Complex and related additions to C99. Probably a small single digit percentage. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 17:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj0mlm4.2tqg.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> |
| In reply to | #7191 |
On 2011-06-29, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > Oh if only that were true. I do wonder how many of the "C community", > which less face it is mainly us embedded programmers these days, have > ever used all the Complex and related additions to C99. Probably a > small single digit percentage. I think it's there for high performance computing people, the other C community, and they were arguing that compilers could do a MUCH better job than user-written libraries. -s -- Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn62no8myd.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #7191 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > On 06/29/11 08:07 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net> writes: >>> >>> And I could go on with my "examples", but it would be unnecessary. >>> That is why I start getting mad/paranoiac. >> >> It's important to understand two things in this regard. >> > <Snip good advice> >> >> The second is that changes and additions to the Standard are >> made on the basis of what is thought to be valuable to the C >> community, and that is very much not the same as what you or I >> might think is valuable. > > Oh if only that were true. I do wonder how many of the "C community", > which less face it is mainly us embedded programmers these days, have > ever used all the Complex and related additions to C99. Probably a > small single digit percentage. I believe it is true as written: "made on the basis of what is thought to be valuable to the C community." I didn't say who it is who are doing that thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sandeep <nospam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-03 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iuqks3$jjf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7164 |
jacob navia writes: > Le 28/06/11 20:01, Tim Rentsch a écrit : >> >> More generally, if you want to be successful in advocating changes to >> the C language, it's important to hear and appreciate the opinions and >> judgments of other people, even when -- or especially when -- they >> don't agree with your own. > > Excuse me if I offended you. I never intended to, and as far as I > remember I never insulted or say anything bad about you. > > I respect of course your opinions, and I do think they are important > since I have always answered each one of your remarks. > > But it is true that I am getting kind of paranoiac lately. I have been > trying to improve the language by working and working in this community > for around 20 years. The first versions of lcc-win are from 1995, and I > started working in this project around 1992. Yes, it must be almost 20 > years. > > I have accomplished nothing. All my proposals were ignored and in this > group, a hate campaign started by K Thompson and R Heathfield provoked > that most people (in this group) just think I am the "shrewd commercial" > that they described. > > Nevertheless I go on working. I have developed a containers library from > scratch with the idea of standardizing it. The specifications make for > around 300 pages, all the code for a sample implementation is available. > > Nothing. Not a single answer in comp.std.c. In this group some people > made positive contributions but nobody is working on that besides me. > > Then, in comp.std.c somebody asks for a small improvement that I > implemented in lcc-win, and that we discussed in comp.std.c in 2002... > Almost ten years ago, and the same problem resurfaces. And I see as in > an ever repeating nightmare that nothing will ever change. > > The standard is closed now, they just left a window for discussion open > for several *months* then they decided to close it. After leaving a gap > of 10 years without any discussion. > > And I could go on with my "examples", but it would be unnecessary. That > is why I start getting mad/paranoiac. > > jacob Sadly my experience too in this group, is that some of the people who are great experts in C, nevertheless are not open to any suggestions for improvement. They will always respond negatively to any proposed enhancement of C. Often they use scorn and ridicule. Mr Thomson and Dr Sosman are the main two I have found like this. It is sad because truly they have great C expertise, but no interest in developing the language for the future!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-03 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e41aca70-6890-4704-9698-f55443d88cdd@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7521 |
On Jul 3, 1:53 pm, sandeep <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > jacob navia writes: > > Le 28/06/11 20:01, Tim Rentsch a écrit : > > >> More generally, if you want to be successful in advocating changes to > >> the C language, it's important to hear and appreciate the opinions and > >> judgments of other people, even when -- or especially when -- they > >> don't agree with your own. > > > Excuse me if I offended you. I never intended to, and as far as I > > remember I never insulted or say anything bad about you. > > > I respect of course your opinions, and I do think they are important > > since I have always answered each one of your remarks. > > > But it is true that I am getting kind of paranoiac lately. I have been > > trying to improve the language by working and working in this community > > for around 20 years. The first versions of lcc-win are from 1995, and I > > started working in this project around 1992. Yes, it must be almost 20 > > years. > > > I have accomplished nothing. All my proposals were ignored and in this > > group, a hate campaign started by K Thompson and R Heathfield provoked > > that most people (in this group) just think I am the "shrewd commercial" > > that they described. > > > Nevertheless I go on working. I have developed a containers library from > > scratch with the idea of standardizing it. The specifications make for > > around 300 pages, all the code for a sample implementation is available. > > > Nothing. Not a single answer in comp.std.c. In this group some people > > made positive contributions but nobody is working on that besides me. > > > Then, in comp.std.c somebody asks for a small improvement that I > > implemented in lcc-win, and that we discussed in comp.std.c in 2002... > > Almost ten years ago, and the same problem resurfaces. And I see as in > > an ever repeating nightmare that nothing will ever change. > > > The standard is closed now, they just left a window for discussion open > > for several *months* then they decided to close it. After leaving a gap > > of 10 years without any discussion. > > > And I could go on with my "examples", but it would be unnecessary. That > > is why I start getting mad/paranoiac. > > > jacob > > Sadly my experience too in this group, is that some of the people who are > great experts in C, nevertheless are not open to any suggestions for > improvement. They will always respond negatively to any proposed > enhancement of C. Often they use scorn and ridicule. Mr Thomson and Dr > Sosman are the main two I have found like this. It is sad because truly > they have great C expertise, but no interest in developing the language > for the future! I don't know this if this going to be on topic or not, but here something one of the former netscape/AOL engineers once told me when about people who wanted to develop C. "If you don't like then, then create you're own f-cking programming language. Otherwise, just shut the f-ck up, and get back to work before I write you up."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-03 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoc1b3v8g.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7521 |
sandeep <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
[...]
> Sadly my experience too in this group, is that some of the people who are
> great experts in C, nevertheless are not open to any suggestions for
> improvement. They will always respond negatively to any proposed
> enhancement of C. Often they use scorn and ridicule. Mr Thomson and Dr
> Sosman are the main two I have found like this. It is sad because truly
> they have great C expertise, but no interest in developing the language
> for the future!
If you're referring to me, please spell my name correctly.
You need to understand the difference between technical criticism and
"scorn and ridicule".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 00:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iuqq2u$1vr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7529 |
Le 03/07/11 23:33, Keith Thompson a écrit : > You need to understand the difference between technical criticism and > "scorn and ridicule". > hypocrisy 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. 2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude. hypocrite 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. http://dictionary.reference.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk4bx4w43.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7533 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Le 03/07/11 23:33, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> You need to understand the difference between technical criticism and
>> "scorn and ridicule".
>>
>
> hypocrisy
>
> 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious
> beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
> 2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
I will not argue the point with you, jacob.
[snip]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iuqvq1$vgj$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #7529 |
In article <lnoc1b3v8g.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Kiki Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> babbled:
>sandeep <nospam@nospam.com> intelligently wrote:
>[...]
>> Sadly my experience too in this group, is that some of the people who are
>> great experts in C, nevertheless are not open to any suggestions for
>> improvement. They will always respond negatively to any proposed
>> enhancement of C. Often they use scorn and ridicule. Mr Thomson and Dr
>> Sosman are the main two I have found like this. It is sad because truly
>> they have great C expertise, but no interest in developing the language
>> for the future!
>
>If you're referring to me, please spell my name correctly.
>
>You need to understand the difference between technical criticism and
>"scorn and ridicule".
No. You do.
--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj11uq8.rek.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> |
| In reply to | #7529 |
On 2011-07-03, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > sandeep <nospam@nospam.com> writes: > [...] >> Sadly my experience too in this group, is that some of the people who are >> great experts in C, nevertheless are not open to any suggestions for >> improvement. They will always respond negatively to any proposed >> enhancement of C. Often they use scorn and ridicule. Mr Thomson and Dr >> Sosman are the main two I have found like this. It is sad because truly >> they have great C expertise, but no interest in developing the language >> for the future! > You need to understand the difference between technical criticism and > "scorn and ridicule". I've mostly responded to sandeep with the latter, because the former is wasted on his absolute fear and loathing of comprehension. Most of the ideas I've seen from "sandeep" were sufficiently crazy that I do not think technical criticism of them provides any value; they have to be trolling, because it requires a very great dael of understanding of C to propose stuff that bad. Ordinary newbie programmers make much simpler mistakes, which are more subject to technical criticism. -s -- Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 17:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iutc5e$7l4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7034 |
>
> Other advantages are that you can be sure that they point always to the
>
> same object, and that they are not NULL. This improves safety of
> programs
>
I fail to understand how.
#include <assert.h>
void func(int & i) {
assert(&i);
return;
}
int main(void) {
int * ip = NULL;
func(*ip);
return 0;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web