Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #136342 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-06 15:13 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-11 23:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 15:13 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 09:54 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 10:26 -0700
Re: software disenchantment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 04:26 -0700
Re: software disenchantment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2018-10-09 18:20 +0000
Re: software disenchantment David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 11:54 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 21:22 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 17:47 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 11:28 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 11:38 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 05:49 -0700
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 15:47 +0200
Re: software disenchantment "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:58 -0400
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 14:39 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:42 -0700
Re: software disenchantment "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:18 -0400
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 20:31 +0100
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-10 17:53 -0500
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 10:06 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 02:34 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 12:03 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 03:59 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 16:56 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 09:02 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 19:39 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-10-15 19:53 +0000
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-16 03:54 -0500
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 20:25 +0200
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 13:16 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 07:15 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 17:05 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 09:15 -0700
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 17:33 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 19:53 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 17:59 +0100
Re: software disenchantment nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2018-10-10 16:53 +0000
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-10 12:45 -0500
Re: software disenchantment Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 11:04 -0700
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-10 14:22 -0500
Re: software disenchantment "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 15:53 -0400
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 09:06 +1300
Re: software disenchantment "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:21 -0700
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 20:27 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 22:54 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 11:01 +1300
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 11:05 +1300
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 23:16 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 11:22 +1300
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 23:28 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 11:33 +1300
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 11:37 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 11:50 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 14:10 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 05:24 -0700
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 15:12 +0200
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 13:13 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 14:44 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 16:38 +0200
Re: software disenchantment mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 08:09 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 17:43 +0100
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 17:36 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 18:56 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 11:54 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 20:09 +0100
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-12 13:10 +0000
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-13 12:57 +0200
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 14:27 -0500
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 22:03 +0200
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 15:56 -0500
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 11:30 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 23:34 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 16:24 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 01:46 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 18:58 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-12 08:50 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 11:12 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 12:55 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 12:10 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 13:29 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 13:06 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 14:30 +0200
Re: software disenchantment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-12 08:53 -0400
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 15:11 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 13:55 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 15:13 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 16:10 +0100
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-12 15:22 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-12 09:12 -0700
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-13 13:00 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-13 12:52 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-14 08:44 +1300
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-13 21:03 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-14 10:13 +1300
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-13 23:02 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-13 16:47 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-14 01:05 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:12 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-14 03:05 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-14 20:14 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 11:25 -0700
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-12 13:17 +0000
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-12 13:16 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 14:36 +0100
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-12 14:25 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-12 15:55 +0100
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-12 15:22 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 08:26 -0700
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-12 15:51 +0000
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-13 13:06 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-10-15 19:30 +0000
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 12:39 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-12 08:44 +0200
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 13:01 +0200
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 20:41 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 20:02 +0100
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 22:13 +0200
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:03 -0500
Re: software disenchantment "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 11:33 -0700
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 21:04 +0200
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 20:15 -0500
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 13:17 +0200
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 13:10 +0000
Re: software disenchantment BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-10 19:22 -0500
Re: software disenchantment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 10:58 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 02:37 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 12:06 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 04:00 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2018-10-11 13:03 -0500
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 19:36 +0100
Re: software disenchantment Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2018-10-11 15:37 -0500
Re: software disenchantment Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 14:01 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 09:02 +1300
Re: software disenchantment Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-10-10 19:11 +0000
Re: software disenchantment David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:08 -0700
Re: software disenchantment Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-10-11 14:52 +0000
Re: software disenchantment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 14:58 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 17:19 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-12 09:49 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-13 09:30 +0200
Re: software disenchantment Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-10-15 08:53 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-15 09:44 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2018-10-10 13:36 +0000
Re: software disenchantment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-10 13:51 -0700
Re: software disenchantment nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2018-10-11 01:53 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-11 10:20 +0000
Re: software disenchantment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 12:53 +0100
Re: software disenchantment "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-11 23:18 -0700
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ppq45a$fk4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136722 |
On 12/10/18 14:06, Bart wrote: > On 12/10/2018 12:29, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/18 13:10, Bart wrote: >>> On 12/10/2018 11:55, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/18 12:12, Bart wrote: >>> >>>> Are you really that bothered about having to type an extra two >>>> characters? >>> >>> Yes. When it is completely pointless to do so. >> >> Since we have now established that there /is/ a point to typing file >> extensions, > > Have we? Yes. Re-read the past couple of posts if you still don't get it. And if that doesn't help, then tough luck for you - you'll just have to live with the situation without understanding it. Maybe you can accept that smarter people than you, with more experience than you, have decided that file extensions are part of file names and need to be given. > > I think we agreed there's a point to /having/ file extensions, which > Unix seems to have grudgingly acknowledged. > People have been using file extensions in *nix since its inception - but the file extension is simply part of the file name. It is a convenience - mainly a convenience to humans, but also a convenience to some programs that can't reasonably determine file type information automatically. There is no "grudging" involved. >> that complaint is now moot. > >>> >>> It's called being user-friendly. Just another example of a misfeature >>> from Linux (which is decidedly unfriendly) permeating everywhere else. >>> >> >> You really are stuck in a groove, aren't you? What the rest of us see >> as features, or at least as necessities, you see as a critical problem >> leading to the downfall of the programming world - just because you >> associate it with Linux or C. Whether it actually /is/ related to >> Linux, or C, is utterly irrelevant to you. You just need some vague >> excuse to feed your daily addiction to moaning, whining, and complaining >> about your two pet hates. > > So why do you type 'make' and not 'make file' or 'make target'? > Why should I? I type "make test", or "make burn", or "make release", if I want a particular type of build - or just "make" for the most common build using the target that /I/ pick as the default in the makefile. There is absolutely no relation to file extensions here. > It sounds like you are happy for the convenience when it suits you or > when everyone else is doing the same. And when the application allows it. I am happy for useful conveniences. > > Yes, this is a minor irritation (especially for me as it only comes up > with other people's software). And I admit that what's more interesting > is not the irritation itself, but the attitudes towards it in this group: Your irritation here is irrational and out of all normal proportion. It is like working yourself into a frenzy because your new shirt has seven buttons when all your old ones had six. > > It's not a nuisance. It's only two characters. It's a feature. You can > fix it by doing away with extensions completely. There is a reason for > it [which seems to have eluded me]. gcc needs it to figure out which > language it's compiling [even when a particular gcc only supports C]. > You can get around it by pressing Tab half a dozen times instead. > Etc. It is hard to help you get over your problems or cure your ignorance when you blindly refuse to read posts, and insist on repeating the same incorrect drivel. > > Everything except admit that it is stupid spending a lifetime entering > pointless extensions when 99.99% of the time, the application can deduce > it. > What is stupid is bursting a blood vessel because you have to type two characters of a file name - especially when you only need to do that in the first place because you would rather irritate yourself with manual builds than learn the basics of better tools. I will leave you to your self-flagellation, until you decide you want to learn something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 08:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppq5ff$ndu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136723 |
On 10/12/2018 08:30 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 12/10/18 14:06, Bart wrote: ... >> So why do you type 'make' and not 'make file' or 'make target'? Because make, by default, reads a makefile, and that makefile specifies a default target, and that default target happens (NOT coincidentally, but rather by writing the makefile to be sure that it's true) to be the target you want built. You only type "make target" if you want a non-default target built. > Why should I? > > I type "make test", or "make burn", or "make release", if I want a > particular type of build - or just "make" for the most common build > using the target that /I/ pick as the default in the makefile. > > There is absolutely no relation to file extensions here. Actually, there is a relation: make allows you to specify rules that are based upon file extensions, and provides a large number of default rules, most of which are based upon file extensions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 15:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ppq6im$ug7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136724 |
On 12/10/18 14:53, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10/12/2018 08:30 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/18 14:06, Bart wrote: > ... >>> So why do you type 'make' and not 'make file' or 'make target'? > > Because make, by default, reads a makefile, and that makefile specifies > a default target, and that default target happens (NOT coincidentally, > but rather by writing the makefile to be sure that it's true) to be the > target you want built. You only type "make target" if you want a > non-default target built. > >> Why should I? >> >> I type "make test", or "make burn", or "make release", if I want a >> particular type of build - or just "make" for the most common build >> using the target that /I/ pick as the default in the makefile. >> >> There is absolutely no relation to file extensions here. > > Actually, there is a relation: make allows you to specify rules that are > based upon file extensions, and provides a large number of default > rules, most of which are based upon file extensions. > Yes, but that bears no relation to whether I type "make" rather than "make file" or "make target". If you want to use the builtin make rules (which I don't normally, since they don't fit my needs), then file extensions are relevant. For example, with no makefile but a file "hello.c", then "make hello" will run "cc hello.c -o hello" and give you a compiled program "hello".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 13:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <QQ0wD.41311$SY5.7117@fx37.am4> |
| In reply to | #136723 |
On 12/10/2018 13:30, David Brown wrote: > On 12/10/18 14:06, Bart wrote: > What is stupid is bursting a blood vessel because you have to type two > characters of a file name - especially when you only need to do that in > the first place because you would rather irritate yourself with manual > builds than learn the basics of better tools. The issue comes up when you have to use a live command line and type directly from a keyboard. I don't have an issue with full filenames used inside source files or in scripts. And obviously it's not an issue when using an IDE. (This is just another entry for my list of excuses to ignore the problem: Oh, you don't want to be using a command line anyway!) > I will leave you to your self-flagellation, until you decide you want to > learn something. I think that more aptly describes everyone else. /I'm/ not the one having to keep typing in the same file extensions to the same application over and over and over again. It's something I've observed when I use other people's apps. Have you ever written applications for ordinary users? My last such app used a GUI but also had a command line. I can imagine what my users would have said if they were obliged to type in "load plan.dwg" a hundred times a day instead of "load plan". Or "readdxf demo.dxf" instead of "readdxf demo" [notice the command already uses 'dxf'?]. Or type in 'output.plt" instead of "output" for plot-to-file (which anyway depends on output configuration). Here, file extensions play a smaller role. There is no need to specify them, because the context of the command used, and sometimes the current settings, will determine what extension is involved. The extensions are needed so that it is possible to have "plan.dwg", "plan.dxf" and "plan.plt" in the same location. (Anyway I'm glad I don't have to use any of the user-interfaces you lot would come up with.) -- bart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 15:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ppq6l1$ug7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136725 |
On 12/10/18 14:55, Bart wrote: > (Anyway I'm glad I don't have to use any of the user-interfaces you lot > would come up with.) > Yes, the whole world is out of step but you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 16:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <%P2wD.16944$e55.6454@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #136728 |
On 12/10/2018 14:13, David Brown wrote: > On 12/10/18 14:55, Bart wrote: > [snipped context] >> Here, file extensions play a smaller role. There is no need to >> specify them, because the context of the command used, and >> sometimes the current settings, will determine what extension is >> involved. >> (Anyway I'm glad I don't have to use any of the user-interfaces you lot >> would come up with.) >> > > Yes, the whole world is out of step but you. To me it me sounds very much like you have your fingers in your ears and are oblivious to any reason. Linux does it that way, so it MUST be good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0%2wD.297729$Ac3.206229@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #136734 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 12/10/2018 14:13, David Brown wrote: >> >> Yes, the whole world is out of step but you. > >To me it me sounds very much like you have your fingers in your ears and >are oblivious to any reason. Pot, Kettle, Black.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7einw3cu.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136723 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> I will leave you to your self-flagellation, until you decide you want to
> learn something.
When?
I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I see you've posted to it
several times, and it has nothing to do with C. Either let Bart have
the last word, or this will never end.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 13:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ppsj8c$kot$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136739 |
On 12/10/18 18:12, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> I will leave you to your self-flagellation, until you decide you want to >> learn something. > > When? > After that post. It was when my irritation over his stubborn ignorance and convinced prejudice outweighed by desire to help and correct incorrect posts. > I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I see you've posted to it > several times, and it has nothing to do with C. Either let Bart have > the last word, or this will never end. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 12:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <w0lwD.19642$RM7.6359@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #136746 |
On 13/10/2018 12:00, David Brown wrote: > On 12/10/18 18:12, Keith Thompson wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> [...] >>> I will leave you to your self-flagellation, until you decide you want to >>> learn something. >> >> When? >> > > After that post. It was when my irritation over his stubborn ignorance > and convinced prejudice outweighed by desire to help and correct > incorrect posts. My postings discuss ideas, products, systems, methodologies, features, proposals etc that I might disagree about. They very rarely get personal. On the other hand, many people disagreeing with me, such as yourself, invariably get down to personal insults. And in the past this has descended to bullying. I would hope people reading the threads will see past that, identify it for what it is, and see past the blatant prejudice there is on the part of those attacking me. (I can't remember there is ever a good word put in for anything related to MS or MSVC or Windows, or even, now DEC. Or to put it more simply, anything that isn't Unix or based on Unix. And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks to being an identical clone).) >> I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I see you've posted to it >> several times, and it has nothing to do with C. (The subject of the sub-thread is broad, but it does come up in C every time you have to type the '.c' of 'gcc program.c'. Clearly no one here has ever stopped to wonder why it is necessary. BTW I would be interesting in seeing any repository of C source code where header files don't have names ending with ".h", and modules files don't have names ending with ".c".) -- bart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 08:44 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <g2f08sFd8lrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #136749 |
On 14/10/18 00:52, Bart wrote: > On 13/10/2018 12:00, David Brown wrote: >> >> After that post. It was when my irritation over his stubborn ignorance >> and convinced prejudice outweighed by desire to help and correct >> incorrect posts. > > And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, > another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks to > being an identical clone).) What better example of "stubborn ignorance" and "incorrect posts" do we need than that remark? You know full well that clang isn't an identical clone of gcc. -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 21:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcswD.12474$%N3.8160@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #136754 |
On 13/10/2018 20:44, Ian Collins wrote: > On 14/10/18 00:52, Bart wrote: >> On 13/10/2018 12:00, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> After that post. It was when my irritation over his stubborn ignorance >>> and convinced prejudice outweighed by desire to help and correct >>> incorrect posts. >> >> And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, >> another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks to >> being an identical clone).) > > What better example of "stubborn ignorance" and "incorrect posts" do we > need than that remark? You know full well that clang isn't an identical > clone of gcc. And your post is a good example of those designed to contradict what I say. This is Wikipedia on Clang: "It [Clang] is designed to act as a drop-in replacement for the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), supporting most of its compilation flags and unofficial language extensions." "Clang implements many GCC compiler intrinsics purely for compatibility." "Clang also maintains ABI compatibility with GCC-generated object code."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 10:13 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <g2f5glFd8lrU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #136756 |
On 14/10/18 09:03, Bart wrote: > On 13/10/2018 20:44, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 14/10/18 00:52, Bart wrote: >>> On 13/10/2018 12:00, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> After that post. It was when my irritation over his stubborn ignorance >>>> and convinced prejudice outweighed by desire to help and correct >>>> incorrect posts. >>> >>> And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, >>> another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks to >>> being an identical clone).) >> >> What better example of "stubborn ignorance" and "incorrect posts" do we >> need than that remark? You know full well that clang isn't an identical >> clone of gcc. > > And your post is a good example of those designed to contradict what I say. > > This is Wikipedia on Clang: > > "It [Clang] is designed to act as a drop-in replacement for the GNU > Compiler Collection (GCC), supporting most of its compilation flags and > unofficial language extensions." > > "Clang implements many GCC compiler intrinsics purely for compatibility." > > "Clang also maintains ABI compatibility with GCC-generated object code." Quite. Compatibility != cone. Most of its compilation flags != clone. If it did the Intel C compiler could be called a gcc clone: https://software.intel.com/en-us/cpp-compiler-developer-guide-and-reference-gcc-compatibility-and-interoperability Oracle's C compiler could be called a gcc clone: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E77782_01/html/E77792/index.html ..and so on. -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 23:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <YXtwD.34437$xH4.31692@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #136757 |
On 13/10/2018 22:13, Ian Collins wrote: > On 14/10/18 09:03, Bart wrote: >> This is Wikipedia on Clang: >> >> "It [Clang] is designed to act as a drop-in replacement for the GNU >> Compiler Collection (GCC), supporting most of its compilation flags and >> unofficial language extensions." >> >> "Clang implements many GCC compiler intrinsics purely for compatibility." >> >> "Clang also maintains ABI compatibility with GCC-generated object code." > > Quite. Compatibility != cone. Most of its compilation flags != clone. > > If it did the Intel C compiler could be called a gcc clone: > > https://software.intel.com/en-us/cpp-compiler-developer-guide-and-reference-gcc-compatibility-and-interoperability Was icc designed specifically to be drop-in compatible with gcc? This comment from a white paper c. 2006: "Building the Linux kernel with Intel C++ Compiler is an ongoing project at Intel. The goal is to improve the gcc source compatibility of the Intel C++ Compiler," suggests that such compilers are almost obliged to be as compatible with gcc as possible in order to build the presumably gcc-centric Linux sources. (I seem to remember you asking me to build those same sources with my little compiler, knowing that such things can be a major undertaking even for major compiler vendors. What is it about this group that always wants to piss all over single-handed programming efforts?) However you are reading too much in my choice of words, desperately trying to prove me wrong at any cost. I suggested clang is given an easy ride because it is intended to be so like gcc in what it can do. That it is just as much of a monster isn't really in any doubt. That Wikipedia article I quoted goes on to say about gcc: 'The GCC source code is a large and somewhat cumbersome system for developers to work with; as one long-time GCC developer put it, "Trying to make the hippo dance is not really a lot of fun".' ------------------------- BTW have a look at this console log: C:\cx>cc test BCC Compiling test.c to test.asm C:\cx>time The current time is: 22:47:55.58 * C:\cx>mm cc MM4-128 Compiling cc.m to cc.exe C:\cx>cc test BCC Compiling test.c to test.asm Lex error ERROR CHAR in:<builtin> Line: 7 C:\cx>time The current time is: 22:48:18.30 test.c is a simple C program that imports stdio.h. The contents are not relevant. At the point marked * in the log, I edited my C compiler sources, in a second console, to disallow '$' in identifiers [to start identifiers; I forgot to disallow it for inside them too, another few seconds]. I then rebuilt the compiler just after the *, and ran it again. Now it fails because '$' is used in my headers (if I'd used the -ext option, it would have showed the name of it). What's of interest here is the time stamp: switching consoles, editing the relevant module, making the changes, and rebuilding from scratch, then testing again, took under half a minute. And no makefiles in sight. The very antithesis of a cumbersome system. But people here seem to hate such things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnva65l87p.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136749 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang,
> another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks
> to being an identical clone).)
[...]
Since this phrase seems to be causing an argument, can you explain what
you mean by "identical clone"?
Personally, I would not use that term to refer to something that is
intended as a drop-in replacement for something else, only for something
that is identical to something else. clang is not an "identical clone"
of gcc. A second copy of gcc would be an "identical clone" of gcc.
Can you at least understand that most people would not use the phrase
the way you did?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 01:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yLvwD.17052$vf.4613@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #136759 |
On 14/10/2018 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, >> another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks >> to being an identical clone).) > [...] > > Since this phrase seems to be causing an argument, I think some are intent on causing an argument by seizing upon a throwaway turn of phrase in order to discredit my remarks. If 'clone' bothers some, try 'lookalike'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b00113a9-94d6-41ed-ac4d-eb0300e959f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #136760 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-7, Bart wrote: > On 14/10/2018 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > [...] > >> And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, > >> another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks > >> to being an identical clone).) > > [...] > > > > Since this phrase seems to be causing an argument, > > I think some are intent on causing an argument by seizing upon a > throwaway turn of phrase in order to discredit my remarks. > > If 'clone' bothers some, try 'lookalike'. They seem to be trying for black box equivalence - that is, for all possible input produce the same output. Why anyone would want to do that for open source software eludes me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 03:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r2gtmgf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136761 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes: > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-7, Bart wrote: >> On 14/10/2018 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote: >> > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> > [...] >> >> And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, >> >> another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks >> >> to being an identical clone).) >> > [...] >> > >> > Since this phrase seems to be causing an argument, >> >> I think some are intent on causing an argument by seizing upon a >> throwaway turn of phrase in order to discredit my remarks. >> >> If 'clone' bothers some, try 'lookalike'. > > They seem to be trying for black box equivalence - that > is, for all possible input produce the same output. What is your evidence for this? If that is the aim they (the clang team?) are failing badly. With a small, dozen-line program, gcc and clang gave different diagnostics, and generated different code. Where the same issue was diagnosed by both, the wording of the message was quite different as was the format. For a while, clang gave much better diagnostics the gcc. This caused gcc to play catch-up and they they are now much closer. That does not sound like the behaviour of a team trying to generate the same output from the same input. > Why anyone would want to do that for open source software > eludes me. It's more likely that no one is doing that. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 20:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pq012j$uh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136761 |
On 14/10/18 03:12, David Kleinecke wrote: > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-7, Bart wrote: >> On 14/10/2018 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, >>>> another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks >>>> to being an identical clone).) >>> [...] >>> >>> Since this phrase seems to be causing an argument, >> >> I think some are intent on causing an argument by seizing upon a >> throwaway turn of phrase in order to discredit my remarks. >> >> If 'clone' bothers some, try 'lookalike'. > > They seem to be trying for black box equivalence - that > is, for all possible input produce the same output. > No, it does not seem that way at all. clang/llvm was started from scratch to be a new way to organise the design a flexible compiler where the front-ends, middle-ends and back-ends were clearly separated. This would allow it to support a range for programming languages and a range of target devices without messy mixups between them. It would allow sophisticated optimisations and transformations in the middle - with link-time optimisation being a speciality. It would allow significant static analysis and warnings. And it would allow usage as libraries so that IDE's, static analysers, and other programs could re-use parts of it. In all that, it has been and continues to be a very successful project. For the convenience of users, it was made to be as compatible as practical with the most important existing compiler project - gcc. Thus it handles most gcc flags and extensions - as well as adding many of its own. And for the convenience of development, it was made to be as compatible as possible with different parts of existing gcc-based toolchains. Thus early development was done using gcc as the C/C++ front-end connected to the llvm backend. binutils was used for assembling and linking until the llvm project's versions were working. gdb is often used as the debugger with clang/llvm, with their own debugger only recently been ready for mainstream use. Standard formats like elf and dwarf are used where possible. It was not intended as a clone, a look-alike, or even a drop-in replacement for gcc. It was intended to be useable in most cases where gcc can be used - that is a different thing. > Why anyone would want to do that for open source software > eludes me. > There are perfectly good reasons why people would want to do that for open source software. But since that is not what clang/llvm is about, those reasons are mostly irrelevant here. What is certainly clear is that the gcc and clang/llvm projects have benefited greatly from both cooperation and friendly competition, and thus users benefit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf93acca-3f31-434e-8da9-7dcf1ec13408@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #136766 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:14:58 PM UTC-3, David Brown wrote: ... > clang/llvm was started from scratch to be a new way to organise the > design a flexible compiler where the front-ends, middle-ends and > back-ends were clearly separated. This would allow it to support a > range for programming languages and a range of target devices without > messy mixups between them. It would allow sophisticated optimisations > and transformations in the middle - with link-time optimisation being a > speciality. It would allow significant static analysis and warnings. > And it would allow usage as libraries so that IDE's, static analysers, > and other programs could re-use parts of it. > > In all that, it has been and continues to be a very successful project. > > For the convenience of users, it was made to be as compatible as > practical with the most important existing compiler project - gcc. Thus > it handles most gcc flags and extensions - as well as adding many of its > own. ( Just a comment. clang is also compatible with visual C++. https://clang.llvm.org/docs/MSVCCompatibility.html Inside visual studio we can select clang as front end. General -> Platform Tool set )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web