Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #103912 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-14 15:37 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 09:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:37 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:05 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:57 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:21 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:10 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 03:05 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 11:38 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 04:28 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 13:22 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 05:47 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 10:06 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 05:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 13:57 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:27 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 15:16 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 18:01 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 18:25 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 19:14 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-15 10:25 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 18:45 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 20:03 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-15 10:12 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-15 10:51 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-15 20:25 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:50 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-16 11:50 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 04:44 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 05:28 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-16 14:32 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 09:13 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 10:38 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 11:55 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 12:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-16 21:32 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 12:55 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-16 22:41 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 14:02 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 15:08 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-16 13:32 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:19 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:01 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 09:16 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:55 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 08:07 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 20:12 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:04 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-17 22:38 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:47 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 14:55 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:11 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-02-17 15:26 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 16:15 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:22 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-17 16:37 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-18 11:57 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 07:13 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 20:26 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 09:17 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 01:18 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:23 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 01:45 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:18 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 07:19 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 20:30 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 09:18 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-18 07:15 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-24 09:24 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 17:51 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-24 10:08 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-24 18:58 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-04-26 05:03 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 11:21 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 09:15 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 17:29 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 06:19 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 16:04 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 07:08 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 16:46 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 09:32 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 20:19 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 11:29 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-26 18:51 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 09:32 +1200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-27 11:01 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 02:23 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-27 21:31 +1200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-04-27 16:15 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 09:35 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 15:12 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 19:13 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-27 11:37 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 15:18 +0200
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 08:43 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-18 09:22 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-18 09:44 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 11:33 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-18 13:25 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 13:47 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-18 15:23 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 14:53 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 16:56 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 22:50 -0600
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 09:45 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 13:35 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-18 11:24 -0500
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 22:48 -0600
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-18 10:04 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 17:12 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-19 11:11 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 21:14 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 21:22 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-19 12:33 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-19 12:31 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 13:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:50 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 15:04 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 10:13 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 21:09 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 15:32 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 12:44 +1300
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 21:04 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 21:14 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 14:48 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-16 15:46 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 16:16 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 04:18 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 06:47 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 09:50 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 04:33 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 15:41 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-21 09:39 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 09:59 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? TickleMe Elmo <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:22 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 15:49 +0000
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 09:43 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:31 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 03:33 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-15 12:47 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:06 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:15 -0800
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "Patrick.Schluter" <Patrick.Schluter@free.fr> - 2017-02-18 12:36 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? "Patrick.Schluter" <Patrick.Schluter@free.fr> - 2017-02-18 12:41 +0100
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 09:42 -0700
Re: What if pre-processor was moved to parser? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 09:58 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 09:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o893b1$f3p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104121 |
On 18/02/17 07:26, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/18/17 08:13 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 17/02/17 23:11, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 02/18/17 11:55 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-6, Bart wrote: >>>>> People use C for various reasons including extra control, and that >>>>> might >>>>> require not wearing a seat-belt. >>>> >>>> More importantly, it might require using some kind of restraint which >>>> doesn't >>>> meet all the applicable safety standards that would be applicable to >>>> seat >>>> belts, but would nonetheless meet the requirements of the purpose to >>>> which >>>> they would be put. >>> >>> At least if the seat belt, even a compromised one, is fitted the driver >>> has a choice. If it's not there, no matter how careful the driver, he >>> is still at risk... >> >> What a terrible analogy! > > Well maybe, but it didn't start out as an analogy, more of a reflection > on my continuing amazement at the stupidity of the human race :) You > can lead a horse to water and all that... > >> A computer programmer has many advantages over a driver. He can drive >> the journey in perfect safety a million times, creating all kinds of >> artificial hazards for his car to negotiate. Whenever there is a smash >> and virtual bodies end up strewn over the landscape, he can chuckle to >> himself that he's glad he's not an analogy while he investigates which >> particular hazard caused which particular problem. Then the virtual >> corpses pick themselves up, dust themselves down, and get willingly back >> into the car for another crack at it. >> >> They say the coward dies a thousand deaths, but the test dummy is much >> braver, and dies a million. >> >> Only when they can safely negotiate every hazard he can imagine (and >> quite a few that his pals Janet and Charlie can imagine because their >> imaginations are more fevered than his) will he even consider letting >> the car go into production. >> >> Next you'll be saying that assertions are like lifeboats. (And I'm ready >> for you if you do!) >> >> Unit tests, young man! Learn all about unit tests! Then you'll find that >> you crash a lot more than before, but you will do so in the safety of >> the lab, where men are fake men, women are fake women, and small furry >> creatures from Alpha Centauri are /fake/ small furry creatures from >> Alpha Centauri. > > Did you miss: "Mind you I'm still amazed at the resistance I > encounter to writing unit tests." I am well aware of your penchant for unit tests. That's *precisely* why I replied as I did. -- 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 | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 01:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170218011807.0d1e068b6ecd4344fc3ec5b0@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #104098 |
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:38:30 +0000 BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > People use C for various reasons including extra control, and that might > require not wearing a seat-belt. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (Benjamin FRANKLIN, November 11 1755) > Otherwise there are plenty of languages that are easier and safer than > either C or C++. Indeed. Some programmers should give up C and use so-called safe languages like Basic or LISP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 13:23 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <egpigfF7ke0U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104109 |
On 02/18/17 01:18 PM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:38:30 +0000 > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> People use C for various reasons including extra control, and that might >> require not wearing a seat-belt. > > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (Benjamin FRANKLIN, November 11 > 1755) In this instance no liberty is being surrendered. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 01:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170218014557.a7fad1b05918af2c44f6db6d@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #104111 |
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:23:43 +1300 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > In this instance no liberty is being surrendered. I agree nobody is forced to implement annex K in a C11 conforming compiler. I only observe the fact the C committee pushed forward a confidential implementation from Microsoft as annex to the C standard while pretending to build the C standard on wide spread practices. Similarly, I'm not forced to use those so-called safe functions then why the C committee made the decision to write the annex K if not by the lobbying of Microsoft bad programmers? You should admit that whatever security features you can provide to programmers, bad behaviors hurt in programs and in life in general. These security features looks like magic pills to cure fat people without teaching them how to feed in a healthy manner their body. Once more, hiding bugs under the carpet makes their correction more difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 16:18 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <egpsncF7ke0U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104114 |
On 02/18/17 01:45 PM, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:23:43 +1300 > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> In this instance no liberty is being surrendered. > > I agree nobody is forced to implement annex K in a C11 conforming compiler. I wasn't really considering annex K in of C11 when it comes to adding safety features, I was thinking of the bits of C++ that allow one to write safer code. I the Microsoft so called safe functions for be more of an unattached seat belt! > You should admit that whatever security features you can provide to > programmers, bad behaviors hurt in programs and in life in general. These > security features looks like magic pills to cure fat people without teaching > them how to feed in a healthy manner their body. Once more, hiding bugs under > the carpet makes their correction more difficult. If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges or helps me to automate resource management, I'm all for it. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 07:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o88sf8$ug7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104117 |
On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: <snip> > If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It makes for a rather delicious fruit drink. > or helps me to > automate resource management, I'm all for it. You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people who think resource management is far too important to be left to the machine. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 20:30 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <egqbglF7ke0U10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104120 |
On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: > <snip> > >> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges > > There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It > makes for a rather delicious fruit drink. Until you teach into that bag of tasty apples and bite into an orange... >> or helps me to >> automate resource management, I'm all for it. > > You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management > is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people > who think resource management is far too important to be left to the > machine. And C++ sits on the fence! -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 09:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o893dd$f3p$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104122 |
On 18/02/17 07:30, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges >> >> There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It >> makes for a rather delicious fruit drink. > > Until you teach into that bag of tasty apples and bite into an orange... You have to mix them in the right way. Unit test your fruit. If you find yourself biting into an orange, re-arrange your universe a little and re-test. >>> or helps me to >>> automate resource management, I'm all for it. >> >> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management >> is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people >> who think resource management is far too important to be left to the >> machine. > > And C++ sits on the fence! Er, quite so. -- 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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 07:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73e8d92b-773a-42d8-afe8-dd8186299fc6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104122 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 7:30:36 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: > > And C++ sits on the fence! > C++ is actually quite clever in that it has evolved into what is in effect a garbage-collected language without ever actually having to mandate GC machinery. Modern C++ programmers don't use new or delete, or write destructors, its all done by std:: objects, like containers and smart pointers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfn8tovtscq.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #104122 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges >> >> There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It >> makes for a rather delicious fruit drink. > > Until you teach into that bag of tasty apples and bite into an orange... > >>> or helps me to >>> automate resource management, I'm all for it. >> >> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management >> is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people >> who think resource management is far too important to be left to the >> machine. > > And C++ sits on the fence! Evangelists annoy me. Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if you would stop doing that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8prn7$h46$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104605 |
On 24/02/17 17:24, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges >>> >>> There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It >>> makes for a rather delicious fruit drink. >> >> Until you teach into that bag of tasty apples and bite into an orange... >> >>>> or helps me to >>>> automate resource management, I'm all for it. >>> >>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management >>> is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people >>> who think resource management is far too important to be left to the >>> machine. >> >> And C++ sits on the fence! > > Evangelists annoy me. People who don't see a joke can be mildly trying too, but I generally try to put up with them. > Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate > here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if > you would stop doing that. He didn't start. "To sit on the fence" means "to be unable to make up one's mind", which is not generally considered a positive thing to say about anybody or anything. (Nor is it a terrible indictment.) He neither praised nor condemned C++ - and the comment was mildly topical with regard to the article to which it was a reply, since that article had already compared C with Lithp. Thorry, Lisp. Furthermore, Ian Collins has contributed quite a lot of positive stuff to comp.lang.c, and personally I am inclined to cut such people a fair amount of slack. -- 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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnfugx68d4.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #104609 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 24/02/17 17:24, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges >>>> >>>> There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It >>>> makes for a rather delicious fruit drink. >>> >>> Until you teach into that bag of tasty apples and bite into an orange... >>> >>>>> or helps me to >>>>> automate resource management, I'm all for it. >>>> >>>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management >>>> is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people >>>> who think resource management is far too important to be left to the >>>> machine. >>> >>> And C++ sits on the fence! >> >> Evangelists annoy me. > > People who don't see a joke can be mildly trying too, but I generally > try to put up with them. Yes, I generally try to ignore minor annoyances, at least for a while. If they persist eventually they stop being minor and I feel obliged to say something. That is what happened with Ian's comments. >> Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate >> here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if >> you would stop doing that. > > He didn't start. "To sit on the fence" means "to be unable to make up > one's mind", which is not generally considered a positive thing to say > about anybody or anything. [...] That isn't the way I read it, but either way it strikes me as bringing C++ into (or back into) a conversation for no apparent reason other than wanting to bring up C++. And it isn't nearly the first time he has done that. > Furthermore, Ian Collins has contributed quite a lot of positive > stuff to comp.lang.c, and personally I am inclined to cut such > people a fair amount of slack. My comments are a response to behavior, not character. Also I think what behavior is expected should be the same whether someone is considered a "good guy" (and I mean nothing negative by that, despite the so-called scare quotes) or not. As far as that goes, if anything the expectations should be /higher/ for people who want to be recognized as positive contributors; otherwise it undercuts the message when other folks are asked to tone down various offending behaviors. But let me return to your main point about cutting some slack. I have done that, and then some. To be sure I'm being fair in saying that, I reviewed a good-sized sample of Ian's postings (to comp.lang.c, and no other newsgroups). Here is a summary. 31% C++ related (23% continuing, 8% new) 10% C related 9% meta (mostly comments about other posters) 9% non-specific style 9% tools (eg make, IDE's) 7% hardware, code generation 25% all others (random, general programming, platform, ...) (These results are for postings made in 2016, with values rounded to the nearest percent.) Considering the above, I think I've bent over backwards to cut Ian some slack. Do you think there is something wrong with my making a polite request that he recognize the behavioral pattern and make some effort to modify it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 18:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <odle6s$u2e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108412 |
On 24/04/17 18:08, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 24/02/17 17:24, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges >>>>> >>>>> There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It >>>>> makes for a rather delicious fruit drink. >>>> >>>> Until you teach into that bag of tasty apples and bite into an orange... >>>> >>>>>> or helps me to >>>>>> automate resource management, I'm all for it. >>>>> >>>>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management >>>>> is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people >>>>> who think resource management is far too important to be left to the >>>>> machine. >>>> >>>> And C++ sits on the fence! >>> >>> Evangelists annoy me. >> >> People who don't see a joke can be mildly trying too, but I generally >> try to put up with them. > > Yes, I generally try to ignore minor annoyances, at least for a > while. If they persist eventually they stop being minor and I > feel obliged to say something. That is what happened with Ian's > comments. It was a one-liner, and I think you're over-reacting. >>> Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate >>> here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if >>> you would stop doing that. >> >> He didn't start. "To sit on the fence" means "to be unable to make up >> one's mind", which is not generally considered a positive thing to say >> about anybody or anything. [...] > > That isn't the way I read it, but either way it strikes me as > bringing C++ into (or back into) a conversation for no apparent > reason other than wanting to bring up C++. And it isn't nearly > the first time he has done that. Your complaint is that he was "evangelizing C++". He wasn't. If you read it differently, then you read it incorrectly. >> Furthermore, Ian Collins has contributed quite a lot of positive >> stuff to comp.lang.c, and personally I am inclined to cut such >> people a fair amount of slack. > > My comments are a response to behavior, not character. Yes, that's reasonable. In fact, that was why I once felt obliged to killfile you, even though I saw you (and still see you) as a "good guy". I think it was a weakness in me rather than a weakness in you, but I felt unable to converse with you for very long without getting - uh, let's say "unrelaxed". And for me, much of the attraction of Usenet is that it's a good way to relax within a group of sensible people. In fact, "unrelaxed" is how I feel again right now - I think you're turning another molehill into another mountain, and I have no particular desire to follow you up the mountain path. > Also I > think what behavior is expected should be the same whether > someone is considered a "good guy" (and I mean nothing negative > by that, despite the so-called scare quotes) or not. As far as > that goes, if anything the expectations should be /higher/ for > people who want to be recognized as positive contributors; > otherwise it undercuts the message when other folks are asked > to tone down various offending behaviors. Perhaps. Although I value topicality very highly, I /also/ value the cameraderie of some of the regular contributors to this group. Ian's contributions are often topical, mostly interesting, and almost invariably courteous. I value such people. Perhaps you don't value them quite so highly as I do? I don't know. > But let me return to your main point about cutting some slack. > I have done that, and then some. To be sure I'm being fair in > saying that, I reviewed a good-sized sample of Ian's postings > (to comp.lang.c, and no other newsgroups). Here is a summary. > > 31% C++ related (23% continuing, 8% new) > 10% C related > 9% meta (mostly comments about other posters) > 9% non-specific style > 9% tools (eg make, IDE's) > 7% hardware, code generation > 25% all others (random, general programming, platform, ...) > > (These results are for postings made in 2016, with values rounded > to the nearest percent.) > > Considering the above, I think I've bent over backwards to cut > Ian some slack. How can we tell, without similar statistics for other regular contributors, including yourself and myself? (Frankly, I suspect that Ian scores rather better than I do.) > Do you think there is something wrong with my > making a polite request that he recognize the behavioral pattern > and make some effort to modify it? No, not at all, but if you're going to complain, at least complain /accurately/. He was not evangelising C++, and to claim otherwise is at best disingenuous. By the way, why the two-month delay? Is that how long it took to compile the Big Brother statistics? However you reply (if in fact you do), I will try to avoid the temptation to prolong this sub-thread any further than I already have. -- 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 | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 05:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog0agg.1jqn.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #108415 |
On Mon, 2017-04-24, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > And for me, much of the attraction of Usenet is > that it's a good way to relax within a group of sensible people. Thanks for reminding me. That's how I want Usenet to work for me, too -- but it's easy to forget. [snip] /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfno9vd21ui.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #108415 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 24/04/17 18:08, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 24/02/17 17:24, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/02/17 03:18, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If then language stops me mixing apples and oranges
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing so terribly wrong about mixing apples and oranges. It
>>>>>> makes for a rather delicious fruit drink.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you teach into that bag of tasty apples and bite into an
>>>>> orange...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> or helps me to
>>>>>>> automate resource management, I'm all for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource
>>>>>> management is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C
>>>>>> is for people who think resource management is far too important to
>>>>>> be left to the machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> And C++ sits on the fence!
>>>>
>>>> Evangelists annoy me.
>>>
>>> People who don't see a joke can be mildly trying too, but I generally
>>> try to put up with them.
>>
>> Yes, I generally try to ignore minor annoyances, at least for a
>> while. If they persist eventually they stop being minor and I
>> feel obliged to say something. That is what happened with Ian's
>> comments.
>
> It was a one-liner, and I think you're over-reacting.
Considered in isolation, I agree with you. If this comment had
happened without all the earlier ones, I wouldn't have said
anything, and probably wouldn't have thought anything about it.
It was the cumulative effect that caused me to say something, and
I should have made that clearer.
>>>> Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate
>>>> here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if
>>>> you would stop doing that.
>>>
>>> He didn't start. "To sit on the fence" means "to be unable to make up
>>> one's mind", which is not generally considered a positive thing to say
>>> about anybody or anything. [...]
>>
>> That isn't the way I read it, but either way it strikes me as
>> bringing C++ into (or back into) a conversation for no apparent
>> reason other than wanting to bring up C++. And it isn't nearly
>> the first time he has done that.
>
> Your complaint is that he was "evangelizing C++". He wasn't. If you
> read it differently, then you read it incorrectly.
I thought for a while about how to respond to this comment. Not
sure what to say, it occurred to me to look up "evangelize",
which led me in turn to "evangelist" and "evangelical". Of
course most of the definitions pertain to religion, but obviously
I didn't mean "evangelize" in any religious sense. One of the
definitions for evangelical (as an adjective) was this:
marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause
and one of the definitions for evangelize (as a transitive verb)
was this:
To promulgate or promote (a doctrine or idea, for example)
enthusiastically
Considered in the context of his other postings here, IMO this
definition applies to the one comment in particular and also to
his behavior more generally. (Note that "enthusiastically" need
not mean "overtly".) If you have a different reaction that's
okay with me. But an absolute statement that my reaction is
incorrect? Either what you're saying is not what I think you're
saying, or you are making an allegation about something whose
truth value is unknowable (if indeed it is defined at all). So
my guess is that what you meant is not what I think you meant.
>>> Furthermore, Ian Collins has contributed quite a lot of positive
>>> stuff to comp.lang.c, and personally I am inclined to cut such
>>> people a fair amount of slack.
>>
>> My comments are a response to behavior, not character.
>
> Yes, that's reasonable. In fact, that was why I once felt obliged to
> killfile you, even though I saw you (and still see you) as a "good
> guy". I think it was a weakness in me rather than a weakness in you,
> but I felt unable to converse with you for very long without getting -
> uh, let's say "unrelaxed". And for me, much of the attraction of
> Usenet is that it's a good way to relax within a group of sensible
> people.
>
> In fact, "unrelaxed" is how I feel again right now - I think you're
> turning another molehill into another mountain, and I have no
> particular desire to follow you up the mountain path.
I'm sorry that has happened. For me it's much bigger than a
molehill, or I wouldn't have said what I did. I am truly sorry
the results have spilled over to give you discomfort.
>> Also I
>> think what behavior is expected should be the same whether
>> someone is considered a "good guy" (and I mean nothing negative
>> by that, despite the so-called scare quotes) or not. As far as
>> that goes, if anything the expectations should be /higher/ for
>> people who want to be recognized as positive contributors;
>> otherwise it undercuts the message when other folks are asked
>> to tone down various offending behaviors.
>
> Perhaps. Although I value topicality very highly, I /also/ value the
> cameraderie of some of the regular contributors to this group. Ian's
> contributions are often topical, mostly interesting, and almost
> invariably courteous. I value such people. Perhaps you don't value
> them quite so highly as I do? I don't know.
It's also important to me, and I wouldn't know where to begin
comparing the relative value to the two of us. Maybe it would
help you understand my behavior better to explain this: when I
say something like what I said upthread, usually it's because
some sustained behavior pattern is interfering with the more
enjoyable interactions I have with the group.
>> But let me return to your main point about cutting some slack.
>> I have done that, and then some. To be sure I'm being fair in
>> saying that, I reviewed a good-sized sample of Ian's postings
>> (to comp.lang.c, and no other newsgroups). Here is a summary.
>>
>> 31% C++ related (23% continuing, 8% new)
>> 10% C related
>> 9% meta (mostly comments about other posters)
>> 9% non-specific style
>> 9% tools (eg make, IDE's)
>> 7% hardware, code generation
>> 25% all others (random, general programming, platform, ...)
>>
>> (These results are for postings made in 2016, with values rounded
>> to the nearest percent.)
>>
>> Considering the above, I think I've bent over backwards to cut
>> Ian some slack.
>
> How can we tell, without similar statistics for other regular
> contributors, including yourself and myself?
Of course it's hard to know exactly, but don't you think your
general impressions give a pretty good indication? I don't
mean low order bits, but let's say the two or three brightest
lines in the spectrum of topics.
> (Frankly, I suspect that Ian scores rather better than I do.)
You do? I would be shocked if that were true. Your postings
here are predominately about C -- if everyone else were as
observant about topicality as you are I would have no complaints.
>> Do you think there is something wrong with my
>> making a polite request that he recognize the behavioral pattern
>> and make some effort to modify it?
>
> No, not at all, but if you're going to complain, at least complain
> /accurately/. He was not evangelising C++, and to claim otherwise is
> at best disingenuous.
I agree that his promotion is subdued and often not overt. IMO
it still qualifies as evangelizing, in large part because of
the persistence. I understand that other people may react
differently.
> By the way, why the two-month delay? Is that how long it took to
> compile the Big Brother statistics?
I was preoccupied with some things I was working on and also
some personal life events and just wasn't posting netnews at
all for a while. Then when I did get back there was a huge
backlog and it took time to go through that. Compiling the
statistics did add some delay but not a lot - the time involved
was roughly half a day but not done all at once so that was
probably two or three days elapsed time due to that.
> However you reply (if in fact you do), I will try to avoid the
> temptation to prolong this sub-thread any further than I already have.
Truth be told I had some trepidation before reading this
message. Upon reading I was pleasantly surprised. I
appreciate your good intentions and have tried to respond
in kind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 09:15 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehbijtF5ugU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #104605 |
On 02/25/17 06:24 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource management >>> is far too important to be left to the programmer, and C is for people >>> who think resource management is far too important to be left to the >>> machine. >> >> And C++ sits on the fence! > > Evangelists annoy me. Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate > here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if > you would stop doing that. Curmudgeons annoy me. Are you as curmudgeonly and humourless in the flesh? Do I really have to add a smiley to every tongue in cheek comment? By what measure is "C++ sits on the fence" evangelising? Maybe this from Wikipedia will help: "Sitting on the fence" is a common idiom used in English to describe one's neutrality or hesitance to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition I'd appreciate it if you lightened up. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 17:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd5616c9-c25f-4bc9-a143-00790990578e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104633 |
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 8:16:10 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/25/17 06:24 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > > > > >> > >> And C++ sits on the fence! > > > > Evangelists annoy me. Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate > > here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if > > you would stop doing that. > > Curmudgeons annoy me. Are you as curmudgeonly and humourless in the > flesh? Do I really have to add a smiley to every tongue in cheek comment? > > By what measure is "C++ sits on the fence" evangelising? > C++ advocacy is not be be compared to Rick's posts about Christianity. With marginally topical subjects, the real issue is quantity. Endless posts about C++ become wearing, a few are relevant and welcome, especially if the thread does not start as a C++ thread but goes naturally in that direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 06:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn8tmn5msi.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #104633 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > On 02/25/17 06:24 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource >>>> management is far too important to be left to the programmer, and >>>> C is for people who think resource management is far too >>>> important to be left to the machine. >>> >>> And C++ sits on the fence! >> >> Evangelists annoy me. Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate >> here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if >> you would stop doing that. > > Curmudgeons annoy me. Are you as curmudgeonly and humourless in the > flesh? Do I really have to add a smiley to every tongue in cheek > comment? I didn't take your comment as tongue-in-cheek, but either way prompts the same reaction. > By what measure is "C++ sits on the fence" evangelising? You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other topics, oftentimes with so little connection that I can't help thinking it's just an excuse to bring up C++. This comment is just one example out of many - it's the overall effect that makes it evangelizing. Do you know the difference between a zealot and a fanatic? Zealots can't change their mind; fanatics can't change their mind, and won't change the subject. > Maybe this from Wikipedia will help: "Sitting on the fence" is a > common idiom used in English to describe one's neutrality or hesitance > to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition > > I'd appreciate it if you lightened up. Happy to, if you will stop indulging your C++ fanaticism in C newsgroups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 16:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170426160418.475ee2e242deb2c58287987b@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #108528 |
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:19:25 -0700 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about > C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other > topics, oftentimes with so little connection that I can't help > thinking it's just an excuse to bring up C++. This comment is > just one example out of many - it's the overall effect that makes > it evangelizing. I'm afraid he's not the only C++ programmer pretending to be the best programmer here considering full-time C programmers as loosers because they think talking about the latest esoteric language would makes them great (again).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf2eabfd-3c68-42cf-aef6-2fcb7652d91e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108528 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 10:19:39 AM UTC-3, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <> writes: > > > On 02/25/17 06:24 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Ian Collins writes: > >> > >>> On 02/18/17 08:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >>> > >>>> You know what they say: Lisp is for people who think resource > >>>> management is far too important to be left to the programmer, and > >>>> C is for people who think resource management is far too > >>>> important to be left to the machine. > >>> > >>> And C++ sits on the fence! > >> > >> Evangelists annoy me. Evangelizing C++ is no more appropriate > >> here than any other off-topic evangelizing. I'd appreciate it if > >> you would stop doing that. > > > > Curmudgeons annoy me. Are you as curmudgeonly and humourless in the > > flesh? Do I really have to add a smiley to every tongue in cheek > > comment? > > I didn't take your comment as tongue-in-cheek, but either > way prompts the same reaction. > > > By what measure is "C++ sits on the fence" evangelising? > > You post here about C++ a lot, noticeably more than you do about > C. Moreover you frequently introduce C++ into threads on other > topics, oftentimes with so little connection that I can't help > thinking it's just an excuse to bring up C++. This comment is > just one example out of many - it's the overall effect that makes > it evangelizing. > > Do you know the difference between a zealot and a fanatic? > Zealots can't change their mind; fanatics can't change their > mind, and won't change the subject. > > > Maybe this from Wikipedia will help: "Sitting on the fence" is a > > common idiom used in English to describe one's neutrality or hesitance > > to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition > > > > I'd appreciate it if you lightened up. > > Happy to, if you will stop indulging your C++ fanaticism in C > newsgroups. I really like the comments about C++ and the discussions about C x C++ or other languages as well. (Rust, Swift etc) I have 17 years of C++, but my style of programming changed in a way were C++ has no more big advantages over C. Every time I program in C I can compare in my mind how it would be implemented in C++. I can contribute on this subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web