Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #65653 > unrolled thread
| Started by | doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-15 20:40 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-07-16 09:55 +1200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-15 20:40 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2015-07-15 16:08 -0500
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-15 17:15 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-15 23:22 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-07-16 18:35 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-16 17:48 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-07-16 19:38 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-16 19:48 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-07-16 22:17 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-16 21:44 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-16 23:51 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-17 09:05 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-16 23:52 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-17 11:36 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> - 2015-07-17 22:22 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-17 18:44 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-18 11:13 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-16 22:06 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-16 23:52 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:24 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-17 00:26 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-16 23:50 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 13:39 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-16 19:48 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-17 09:07 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-16 16:05 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:28 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 11:13 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-20 19:27 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-21 08:46 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:12 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 11:55 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-25 15:01 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 11:51 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:02 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-27 23:35 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-28 14:16 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-28 04:49 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-27 23:25 -0500
Re: SQL filesortcc question raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-28 09:32 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-28 10:22 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-27 22:33 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-28 04:57 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-28 16:38 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-28 00:51 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-28 07:06 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-28 20:32 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-28 10:02 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-28 22:08 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 18:17 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-29 12:14 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-29 11:27 -0500
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-29 13:01 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-29 17:33 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-29 21:07 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-29 16:33 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-29 22:12 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-29 23:50 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 00:13 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-30 01:49 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 02:07 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-30 03:04 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 08:25 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-30 09:15 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 17:17 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-30 17:00 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 17:12 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-30 15:12 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-30 23:13 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-31 10:29 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-31 08:10 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-31 11:12 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-31 22:56 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-31 18:34 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-01 13:55 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 07:13 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-01 15:36 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 09:19 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-01 18:16 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 15:30 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-02 09:00 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:19 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 14:23 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-02 06:35 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:11 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-02 10:28 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:04 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-03 00:19 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 13:55 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-03 07:03 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 16:53 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:19 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 21:20 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 14:07 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 12:24 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-06 13:49 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 15:41 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-07 07:24 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 17:04 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-02 06:48 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-04 08:00 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-04 08:52 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:56 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-04 23:45 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-05 08:45 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 12:00 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:17 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-01 16:11 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 14:00 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 10:40 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 16:20 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:26 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-22 05:39 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 13:51 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 10:38 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 16:14 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 01:15 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 16:24 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 02:32 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 12:57 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 22:23 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:21 -0500
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:21 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:05 -0500
Re: SQL filesortcc question Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:24 -0500
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-01 23:56 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 14:25 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-30 14:19 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-29 19:53 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-29 23:45 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-30 04:22 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-30 13:13 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 13:27 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-30 13:57 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 14:11 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-30 14:39 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-30 15:05 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-30 14:03 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-30 11:22 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-29 18:32 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-30 14:38 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-30 10:56 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-30 22:28 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-30 10:57 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 08:02 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-03 08:33 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-03 20:50 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-04 04:52 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-04 06:08 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 14:20 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-04 06:45 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 12:15 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 19:09 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-04 06:09 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-04 14:40 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 13:24 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 21:51 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-05 17:16 -0400
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-05 19:59 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-06 07:51 +0100
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 17:32 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:04 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:23 +0200
Re: SQL filesortcc question raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:14 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-25 15:25 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 11:31 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-25 17:10 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:29 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-25 23:51 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 20:24 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-26 03:02 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:22 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-26 15:04 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:32 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-26 16:49 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-27 21:46 +1200
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-27 04:53 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 14:58 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-26 15:15 -0700
Re: SQL filesortcc question doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2015-07-16 19:47 +0000
Re: SQL filesortcc question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:55 +1200
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-17 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mo9i3m$3kh$1@ns2.nl2k.ab.ca> |
| In reply to | #65735 |
In article <mo9htu$gi3$1@dont-email.me>, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 17/07/15 00:52, The Doctor wrote: >> In article <mo969u$9p0$1@dont-email.me>, >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: ><snip> >>>Seriously, yeah, that's a terrible diagnostic message, but we can hardly >>>blame the language for a poor implementation. >>> >> >> What do you flame then? > >I'm not quite sure what barbecues have to do with it. i ;-) >If you mean, why >do I think they didn't provide a better diagnostic message, I'm guessing >that either they were too lazy or it turned out to be too difficult to >provide better information. Probably the latter. I think the general >point - that C++ implementations often produce unhelpful diagnostic >messages - is probably valid. Certainly it's been my experience. The >trick is to ignore the message and focus on the line number. Overall picture needs some light shedded. > >-- >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 -- Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism Abuse a man unjustly, and you will make friends for him. -Edgar Watson Howe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-16 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mo9g0u$1d2$1@ns2.nl2k.ab.ca> |
| In reply to | #65717 |
In article <mo93dl$tht$1@dont-email.me>, jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: >Le 16/07/2015 21:48, The Doctor a écrit : >> In article <mo8q3l$o7e$1@dont-email.me>, >> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > >>> The second part, and we can see it at our example in the original >>> poster's code, are THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE ERROR MESSAGES. >>> >>> /usr/source/mysql-5.6.25/sql/filesort_utils.cc:178: parse error before >>> `>' token >>> >>> ???? >>> >>> >> >> Solution: >> >> #include <memory> >> > >Sure! > >If I see a parser error it is EVIDENT that I need to include <memory>. > >OF COURSE! How stupid I am... OF Course this is C++ . -- Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism Abuse a man unjustly, and you will make friends for him. -Edgar Watson Howe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b14a6535-0032-4b7c-abe4-10b6e4d59337@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65711 |
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 12:38:36 PM UTC-5, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 16/07/2015 18:48, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
> > On 16/07/15 17:35, jacobnavia wrote:
> >> Le 15/07/2015 23:15, James Kuyper a écrit :
> >>> I know a fair amount of C++, more than
> >>> the average person on comp.lang.c - but I can't figure out what's
> >>> causing the parse error - so you need a better C++ expert than me.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is the reason I try to avoid C++ as faar as I can.
> >>
> >> C++ is unreadable, even for experts!
> >
> > Fortunately, I am not a C++ expert. I therefore have no problem reading
> > /my/ C++ programs, at least.
> >
> > The problem seems to be that the language has so many features, all of
> > which seem enormously tempting. If you're not using a whole bunch of
> > classes (with multiple inheritance and polymorphism and all the rest of
> > it), you're not really writing in C++. If you're not using operator
> > overloading, you're not really writing in C++. If you're not writing
> > your own templates, you're not really writing in C++. If you're not...
> > how long do we have? And when you've finished, you have everything
> > shoehorned in there, but it's... eeeuuuuwwww.
>
> That is ONE part of the problem.
>
> The second part, and we can see it at our example in the original
> poster's code, are THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE ERROR MESSAGES.
>
> /usr/source/mysql-5.6.25/sql/filesort_utils.cc:178: parse error before
> `>' token
>
> ????
Error messages involving templates in g++ border on incontinence, especially
when it boils down to "you need to use a const here, you idiot." That's a
QoI issue within g++, though, not necessarily a problem with the language
itself.
I've been writing C++ pretty exclusively at work for the last decade, and
I've just barely scratched the surface. I want to create my own custom
debug log stream that acts like any other output stream with some additional
manipulators to set the log level and context for the message, a la
log << debug << "this is a debug message" << std::endl;
log << info << "this is an info message" << std::endl;
and writes output like
[07/31/2015 15:34:27.000324][DEBUG] - this is a debug message
[07/31/2015 15:34:27.054001][INFO] - this is an info message
and add some additional context when necessary, be able to adjust the log
priority on the fly, and all that good stuff.
We actually had such an implementation at a prior job, but I never grabbed
a copy of it to study. Now I'm trying to reproduce it and rapidly getting
lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-16 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mo91pq$ged$1@ns2.nl2k.ab.ca> |
| In reply to | #65710 |
In article <mo8n6i$cr9$1@dont-email.me>, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 16/07/15 17:35, jacobnavia wrote: >> Le 15/07/2015 23:15, James Kuyper a écrit : >>> I know a fair amount of C++, more than >>> the average person on comp.lang.c - but I can't figure out what's >>> causing the parse error - so you need a better C++ expert than me. >> >> >> That is the reason I try to avoid C++ as faar as I can. >> >> C++ is unreadable, even for experts! > >Fortunately, I am not a C++ expert. I therefore have no problem reading >/my/ C++ programs, at least. > >The problem seems to be that the language has so many features, all of >which seem enormously tempting. If you're not using a whole bunch of >classes (with multiple inheritance and polymorphism and all the rest of >it), you're not really writing in C++. If you're not using operator >overloading, you're not really writing in C++. If you're not writing >your own templates, you're not really writing in C++. If you're not... >how long do we have? And when you've finished, you have everything >shoehorned in there, but it's... eeeuuuuwwww. > >But by far the most frustrating thing I find about C++ is that nothing >ever seems to *do* anything. Everything seems to be about asking >something else to do the doing. When I finally get to one tiny part of >the doings, it's a couple of lines of code that give me no feel for >what's actually going on - the rest of it is /somewhere else/. I get the >feeling that a very clever person with a deep understanding of the >language has worked very hard to stop me finding out how the program >actually works. > >So I decided not to even try to become an expert, and contented myself >instead with writing simple, readable C++ programs. > ><advocacy> >That's why I'd like C to stay simple; it's also why C99 was a big >mistake, and of course it's why C11 was an even bigger mistake. ></advocacy> > Smplicity is nice, but what about compatiblity? >-- >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 -- Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism Abuse a man unjustly, and you will make friends for him. -Edgar Watson Howe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-17 09:07 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d0qkp3Fmch1U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #65710 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > > So I decided not to even try to become an expert, and contented myself > instead with writing simple, readable C++ programs. A concept Jacob appears unable to grasp. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-16 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3011d896218c575054@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #65710 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > But by far the most frustrating thing I find about C++ is that nothing > ever seems to *do* anything. Everything seems to be about asking > something else to do the doing. When I finally get to one tiny part of > the doings, it's a couple of lines of code that give me no feel for > what's actually going on - the rest of it is /somewhere else/. I get the > feeling that a very clever person with a deep understanding of the > language has worked very hard to stop me finding out how the program > actually works. That problem isn't specific to C++; the Linux kernel is replete with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-16 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5e2d39e-0990-49a5-a06b-ab9278b04f1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65710 |
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 9:48:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote: > <advocacy> > That's why I'd like C to stay simple; it's also why C99 was a big > mistake, and of course it's why C11 was an even bigger mistake. > </advocacy> Hallelujah!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnlhealmtg.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65710 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 16/07/15 17:35, jacobnavia wrote: >> Le 15/07/2015 23:15, James Kuyper a ecrit : >>> I know a fair amount of C++, more than >>> the average person on comp.lang.c - but I can't figure out what's >>> causing the parse error - so you need a better C++ expert than me. >> >> That is the reason I try to avoid C++ as faar as I can. >> >> C++ is unreadable, even for experts! > > Fortunately, I am not a C++ expert. I therefore have no problem > reading /my/ C++ programs, at least. > > The problem seems to be that the language has so many features, > all of which seem enormously tempting. [snip elaboration] > > So I decided not to even try to become an expert, and contented > myself instead with writing simple, readable C++ programs. (The above was left in just for context.) > <advocacy> > That's why I'd like C to stay simple; it's also why C99 was a big > mistake, and of course it's why C11 was an even bigger mistake. > </advocacy> The implied comparison here strikes me as, at the very least, hyperbole. The difference between C90 and C99 is vastly dwarfed by the difference even between C++ in 1990 and C++ in 2003, for example (to say nothing of 2011/2014). However my question is not about the comparison but about the perceived differences between C90 and C99, and also C11. Can you elaborate on the particulars? In particular, which changes or additions in C99 were (in your opinion) worth introducing, and which are on the "big mistake" side of the scale? For the ones in the second category, can you explain what about them adds too much complexity? And a repeat of those questions with C11 substituted for C99.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 19:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mojef4$nfu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66034 |
[Tim, I warn you in advance that you will not like this answer.] On 20/07/15 19:13, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > <snip> >> <advocacy> >> That's why I'd like C to stay simple; it's also why C99 was a big >> mistake, and of course it's why C11 was an even bigger mistake. >> </advocacy> > > The implied comparison here strikes me as, at the very least, > hyperbole. It's what I do best. In fact, I do hyperbole far better than anyone else who ever lived, ever ever ever. > The difference between C90 and C99 is vastly > dwarfed by the difference even between C++ in 1990 and C++ > in 2003, for example (to say nothing of 2011/2014). So I won't need to tell you my opinion of C++2003 onwards - I'm sure you can guess it. > However > my question is not about the comparison but about the > perceived differences between C90 and C99, and also C11. > Can you elaborate on the particulars? In particular, which > changes or additions in C99 were (in your opinion) worth > introducing, That shouldn't take too long. Done. > and which are on the "big mistake" side of > the scale? All the changes not mentioned above. > For the ones in the second category, can > you explain what about them adds too much complexity? C99 - C90. Okay, I'll grant that implicit int was a wart that nobody will miss, but it didn't do any harm because nobody used it anyway. > And a repeat of those questions with C11 substituted for > C99. C11 - C99. Again, I'll grant that gets() won't be missed - but, again, nobody with any sense used it, so it didn't do any harm. I think the language we had with C90 was simple, elegant, and powerful. C99 went some considerable way toward filling a much-needed gap, and C11 did the rest. I can't point a finger at any one feature and say "that was the feature that broke the camel's back", because they all came at once (or rather, at twice, or at thrice if you count C95). But the overall result is a language that is top-heavy with inessentials. -- 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 | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-21 08:46 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d1551fF9itpU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66040 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > > I can't point a finger at any one feature and say "that was the feature > that broke the camel's back", because they all came at once (or rather, > at twice, or at thrice if you count C95). But the overall result is a > language that is top-heavy with inessentials. My Jag is full of inessentials and my old mini was elegant in its simplicity (although some clown had fitted a heater). I know which one I prefer to take on a long drive... -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-22 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55afb27f.2114609@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66058 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > > I can't point a finger at any one feature and say "that was the feature > > that broke the camel's back", because they all came at once (or rather, > > at twice, or at thrice if you count C95). But the overall result is a > > language that is top-heavy with inessentials. > > My Jag is full of inessentials and my old mini was elegant in its > simplicity (although some clown had fitted a heater). I know which one > I prefer to take on a long drive... Well, yes. But C was the programming language for people who want to take their car into the city centre and park it anywhere without being afraid it'll get broken into. And Richard's point (which I partly agree with) is that by now it's been turned from a Mini into a New Mini into a late-edition Golf. Which isn't really good for either long-distance _or_ city driving. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 11:55 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d1ilutFkmugU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66161 |
Richard Bos wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>> I can't point a finger at any one feature and say "that was the feature >>> that broke the camel's back", because they all came at once (or rather, >>> at twice, or at thrice if you count C95). But the overall result is a >>> language that is top-heavy with inessentials. >> >> My Jag is full of inessentials and my old mini was elegant in its >> simplicity (although some clown had fitted a heater). I know which one >> I prefer to take on a long drive... > > Well, yes. But C was the programming language for people who want to > take their car into the city centre and park it anywhere without being > afraid it'll get broken into. And Richard's point (which I partly agree > with) is that by now it's been turned from a Mini into a New Mini into a > late-edition Golf. Which isn't really good for either long-distance _or_ > city driving. If you are going to stretch the auto analogy, I would say C89 to C99 was more like adding twin carbs and decent breaks to the mini! -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7478fca-27a3-449c-8b32-321486f66158@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #66058 |
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 9:46:48 PM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote: > > My Jag is full of inessentials and my old mini was elegant in its > simplicity (although some clown had fitted a heater). I know which one > I prefer to take on a long drive... > Depends where you drive. On sedate motorways with service stations every few miles, the Jag is king, cruising along nicely (though at the same speed as the Mini, unless you're one of those people who shouldn't be trusted with a driving licence). But in somewhere like Africa, the Jag will quickly break down. Then all the complex systems become a liability - there's probably a villager somewhere who knows a bit about cars, but whilst he can have a go at repairing the Mini, he just looks at the Jag's computer-controlled anti-lock braking, realises that there's something wrong with it that makes the car undriveable, shakes his head, and offers you a room for the night a fifty dollars for it for scrap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 11:51 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d1ilopFkmugU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66363 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 9:46:48 PM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote: >> >> My Jag is full of inessentials and my old mini was elegant in its >> simplicity (although some clown had fitted a heater). I know which one >> I prefer to take on a long drive... >> > Depends where you drive. On sedate motorways with service stations > every few miles, the Jag is king, cruising along nicely (though > at the same speed as the Mini, unless you're one of those people > who shouldn't be trusted with a driving licence). In my neck of the woods we lack both motorways (that a European would recognise) and frequent service stations. > But in somewhere > like Africa, the Jag will quickly break down. My old mini used to break down on a regular basis on the A1..... -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn6158goh2.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66040 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> [Tim, I warn you in advance that you will not like this answer.]
>
> On 20/07/15 19:13, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> <advocacy>
>>> That's why I'd like C to stay simple; it's also why C99 was a big
>>> mistake, and of course it's why C11 was an even bigger mistake.
>>> </advocacy>
>>
>> The implied comparison here strikes me as, at the very least,
>> hyperbole.
>
> It's what I do best. In fact, I do hyperbole far better than
> anyone else who ever lived, ever ever ever.
If I've told you once I've told you ULLONG_MAX times, don't
exaggerate.
>> The difference between C90 and C99 is vastly
>> dwarfed by the difference even between C++ in 1990 and C++
>> in 2003, for example (to say nothing of 2011/2014).
>
> So I won't need to tell you my opinion of C++2003 onwards - I'm
> sure you can guess it.
I don't think you need to tell me your opinion of pre-2003 C++
either.
>> However
>> my question is not about the comparison but about the
>> perceived differences between C90 and C99, and also C11.
>> Can you elaborate on the particulars? In particular, which
>> changes or additions in C99 were (in your opinion) worth
>> introducing,
>
> That shouldn't take too long.
>
> Done.
I find this assertion quite unbelievable. Did you even bother to
review what features were added? Do you really think none of the
following features provide a benefit over C90
// comments
va_copy macro
remove implicit int
reliable integer division
more precise aliasing rules
__func__ predefined identifier
additional predefined macro names
increased minimum translation limits
remove implicit function declaration
trailing comma allowed in enum declaration
the snprintf family of functions in <stdio.h>
return without expression not permitted in function that
returns a value (and vice versa)
relaxed constraints on aggregate and union initialization
IEC 60559 (also known as IEC 559 or IEEE arithmetic) support
or (do not) introduce any significant complexity into the
language? What language complexity arises in each case,
if you please?
>> and which are on the "big mistake" side of
>> the scale?
>
> All the changes not mentioned above.
>
>> For the ones in the second category, can
>> you explain what about them adds too much complexity?
>
> C99 - C90.
>
> Okay, I'll grant that implicit int was a wart that nobody will
> miss, but it didn't do any harm because nobody used it anyway.
>
>> And a repeat of those questions with C11 substituted for
>> C99.
>
> C11 - C99.
>
> Again, I'll grant that gets() won't be missed - but, again, nobody
> with any sense used it, so it didn't do any harm.
>
> I think the language we had with C90 was simple, elegant, and
> powerful. C99 went some considerable way toward filling a
> much-needed gap, and C11 did the rest.
>
> I can't point a finger at any one feature and say "that was the
> feature that broke the camel's back", because they all came at
> once (or rather, at twice, or at thrice if you count C95). But
> the overall result is a language that is top-heavy with
> inessentials.
Coming from someone who purportedly wants to and tries to be
helpful to people, that was a singularly unhelpful answer.
I am making a sincere and earnest attempt to understand your
reservations. Apparently you don't want them understood. This
suggests your actual reservations don't have so much to do with
complexity as they do simply being resistant to change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 23:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mp6ble$fr3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66340 |
On 25/07/15 18:02, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> [Tim, I warn you in advance that you will not like this answer.] (And you probably won't like this one, either.) >> On 20/07/15 19:13, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> <snip> > >>> The difference between C90 and C99 is vastly >>> dwarfed by the difference even between C++ in 1990 and C++ >>> in 2003, for example (to say nothing of 2011/2014). >> >> So I won't need to tell you my opinion of C++2003 onwards - I'm >> sure you can guess it. > > I don't think you need to tell me your opinion of pre-2003 C++ > either. It's my second-favourite language, so yeah, you're right, I think it's ghastly. >>> However >>> my question is not about the comparison but about the >>> perceived differences between C90 and C99, and also C11. >>> Can you elaborate on the particulars? In particular, which >>> changes or additions in C99 were (in your opinion) worth >>> introducing, >> >> That shouldn't take too long. >> >> Done. > > I find this assertion quite unbelievable. Did you even bother to > review what features were added? Do you really think none of the > following features provide a benefit over C90 Yes - or rather, I really think that none of the features you list (or any you missed) were worth the cost. It is a real cost, and it is a cost that all of us had to pay. We used to have a C language. Now we have several C languages. We're right back where we were in the early 1980s. <snip> >> I think the language we had with C90 was simple, elegant, and >> powerful. C99 went some considerable way toward filling a >> much-needed gap, and C11 did the rest. >> >> I can't point a finger at any one feature and say "that was the >> feature that broke the camel's back", because they all came at >> once (or rather, at twice, or at thrice if you count C95). But >> the overall result is a language that is top-heavy with >> inessentials. > > Coming from someone who purportedly wants to and tries to be > helpful to people, that was a singularly unhelpful answer. Today I saw again the video footage of that amazingly patient traffic cop handing out a ticket to a guy who was so angry his car was shaking. Taking a cue from his book... My answer was helpful because it explained why it wasn't any one individual feature that was the problem, but *all* of them. > I am making a sincere and earnest attempt to understand your > reservations. Apparently you don't want them understood. This > suggests your actual reservations don't have so much to do with > complexity as they do simply being resistant to change. My reservations are easy to understand, surely? I want to be able to write a C program, send it to Frank and Jill and Dai and Marie-Claire and Olu and every other user, and know for sure that they'll all be able to compile it. Some of them have been using C for many years, and so, for some of them, their compilers might easily be a quarter of a century old (I have occasionally received correspondence to this effect). It is impractical to ask them all to supply me with a complete list of the compilers they all use. I have to draw a line somewhere. For me, the line is ISO C90. If they have a compiler that can do C90, they can compile my stuff. I could draw the line lower, but then I wouldn't be able to use (say) function prototypes. I could draw it higher, but then I'd be reducing the ability of my user base to compile my stuff. C90 is just about universal, so it's a good place to draw a line. C99, even fifteen years on, *isn't* universal, so it's not a good place to draw a line. -- 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 | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 14:16 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d1o70qFohsbU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66460 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > > Yes - or rather, I really think that none of the features you list (or > any you missed) were worth the cost. It is a real cost, and it is a cost > that all of us had to pay. We used to have a C language. Now we have > several C languages. We're right back where we were in the early 1980s. Oh no, some bugger has invented DVDs and BluRay, so I have several media formats to choose. We really should have stuck with VHS. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 04:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mp6u1b$v2i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66468 |
On 28/07/15 03:16, Ian Collins wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> Yes - or rather, I really think that none of the features you list (or >> any you missed) were worth the cost. It is a real cost, and it is a cost >> that all of us had to pay. We used to have a C language. Now we have >> several C languages. We're right back where we were in the early 1980s. > > Oh no, some bugger has invented DVDs and BluRay, so I have several media > formats to choose. We really should have stuck with VHS. A closer analogy: someone has invented several new VHS formats, all slightly incompatible with each other, so a VHS player is no longer enough for playing a VHS video - you have to have the /right kind/ of VHS player. We really should have stuck with one single meaning for VHS. If we want new formats, that's fine, but why not call them something else, such as DVD or BluRay? -- 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 | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 23:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp705h$47u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66472 |
On 7/27/2015 10:49 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 28/07/15 03:16, Ian Collins wrote: >> Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>> Yes - or rather, I really think that none of the features you list (or >>> any you missed) were worth the cost. It is a real cost, and it is a cost >>> that all of us had to pay. We used to have a C language. Now we have >>> several C languages. We're right back where we were in the early 1980s. >> >> Oh no, some bugger has invented DVDs and BluRay, so I have several media >> formats to choose. We really should have stuck with VHS. > > A closer analogy: someone has invented several new VHS formats, all > slightly incompatible with each other, so a VHS player is no longer > enough for playing a VHS video - you have to have the /right kind/ of > VHS player. We really should have stuck with one single meaning for VHS. > If we want new formats, that's fine, but why not call them something > else, such as DVD or BluRay? Because they aren't different enough. (No, there's no hard and fast rule for what would make it different enough.) BTW, there are at least four VHS formats, 14 DVD formats, and three BluRay formats. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 09:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55b74b95.3123671@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66474 |
Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/27/2015 10:49 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 28/07/15 03:16, Ian Collins wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield wrote: > >>> > >>> Yes - or rather, I really think that none of the features you list (or > >>> any you missed) were worth the cost. It is a real cost, and it is a cost > >>> that all of us had to pay. We used to have a C language. Now we have > >>> several C languages. We're right back where we were in the early 1980s. > >> > >> Oh no, some bugger has invented DVDs and BluRay, so I have several media > >> formats to choose. We really should have stuck with VHS. > > > > A closer analogy: someone has invented several new VHS formats, all > > slightly incompatible with each other, so a VHS player is no longer > > enough for playing a VHS video - you have to have the /right kind/ of > > VHS player. We really should have stuck with one single meaning for VHS. > > If we want new formats, that's fine, but why not call them something > > else, such as DVD or BluRay? > > Because they aren't different enough. (No, there's no hard and fast rule > for what would make it different enough.) BTW, there are at least four > VHS formats, 14 DVD formats, and three BluRay formats. Yes, and as Richard notes about C, these multiple standards _do_ have real costs. It's one thing to believe that the advantages outweigh the cost (which I believe to be true, just, in the case of C99, am far from convinced of in the case of C11, and more or less certain is not the case for most of the video varieties); it's another to pretend there isn't any and just push on with the "advance" regardless. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web