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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #135999 > unrolled thread

Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C)

Started bygazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
First post2018-10-02 14:06 +0000
Last post2018-10-02 19:30 -0400
Articles 8 — 7 participants

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-02 14:06 +0000
    Re: Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 15:28 +0100
      Re: Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2018-10-02 15:41 +0000
        Re: Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-10-02 10:13 -0700
          Re: Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-10-02 18:00 +0000
            Re: Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-10-02 12:34 -0700
              Re: Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2018-10-02 23:53 +0200
              Re: Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-02 19:30 -0400

#135999 — Newsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C)

Fromgazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Date2018-10-02 14:06 +0000
SubjectNewsgroups *ARE* entertainment (Was: Dropping C)
Message-ID<povu0s$hbe$1@news.xmission.com>
In article <87o9jj24gq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
...
>> People tolerate C because at this level there are too few choices
>> (there is C++ which is even worse). But they shouldn't make out it is
>> a perfect language where nothing sucks.
>
>This sort if misrepresentation of other people's views, and the fact
>that you've complained about Python on comp.lang.python, points to it
>being simply a form of entertainment.

Is that a problem?

I think that is why we post here.  Because it entertains us (i.e.,
ourselves) and, we hope, it entertains others.  What other reason would
there be?

-- 
So to cure the problem of arrogant incompetent rich people we should turn
the government over to an arrogant incompetent trust fund billionaire
who knows nothing about government and who has never held a job in his
entire spoiled life?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#136002

FromBart <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2018-10-02 15:28 +0100
Message-ID<2gLsD.532216$%L2.208280@fx15.am4>
In reply to#135999
On 02/10/2018 15:06, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <87o9jj24gq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> ...
>>> People tolerate C because at this level there are too few choices
>>> (there is C++ which is even worse). But they shouldn't make out it is
>>> a perfect language where nothing sucks.
>>
>> This sort if misrepresentation of other people's views, and the fact
>> that you've complained about Python on comp.lang.python, points to it
>> being simply a form of entertainment.
> 
> Is that a problem?
> 
> I think that is why we post here.  Because it entertains us (i.e.,
> ourselves) and, we hope, it entertains others.  What other reason would
> there be?

It might simply be that both languages suck.

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

#136007

Fromnobody@example.org (Scott)
Date2018-10-02 15:41 +0000
Message-ID<5bb3916f.1342946734@news.xmission.com>
In reply to#136002
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:28:11 +0100, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>It might simply be that both languages suck.

At last, a faint glimmer of enlightenment!

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

#136009

Fromalready5chosen@yahoo.com
Date2018-10-02 10:13 -0700
Message-ID<2106c4c1-e697-4f06-9fe4-7536553b8343@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#136007
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 6:42:02 PM UTC+3, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:28:11 +0100, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
> >It might simply be that both languages suck.
> 
> At last, a faint glimmer of enlightenment!

Sturgeon's law says that ninety percent of everything is crap.
I am afraid that it does not apply to the realm of programming languages.
Off by one order of magnitude at least.

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

#136014

FromIke Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org>
Date2018-10-02 18:00 +0000
Message-ID<slrn3qhcpr7ch3.pgv.ike@iceland.freeshell.org>
In reply to#136009
On 2018-10-02, already5chosen@yahoo.com <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 6:42:02 PM UTC+3, Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:28:11 +0100, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >It might simply be that both languages suck.
>> 
>> At last, a faint glimmer of enlightenment!
>
> Sturgeon's law says that ninety percent of everything is crap.
> I am afraid that it does not apply to the realm of programming languages.
> Off by one order of magnitude at least.

Which way?
Do you mean that, in the realm of programming languages, 9 percent
of everything is crap? Or do you mean that, in the realm of programming
languages, 900 percent of everything is crap?

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

#136017

Fromalready5chosen@yahoo.com
Date2018-10-02 12:34 -0700
Message-ID<dba12ce3-a844-4f15-ad0c-9d0317b21069@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#136014
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:00:22 PM UTC+3, Ike Naar wrote:
> On 2018-10-02, already5chosen@yahoo.com <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 6:42:02 PM UTC+3, Scott wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:28:11 +0100, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >It might simply be that both languages suck.
> >> 
> >> At last, a faint glimmer of enlightenment!
> >
> > Sturgeon's law says that ninety percent of everything is crap.
> > I am afraid that it does not apply to the realm of programming languages.
> > Off by one order of magnitude at least.
> 
> Which way?
> Do you mean that, in the realm of programming languages, 9 percent
> of everything is crap? Or do you mean that, in the realm of programming
> languages, 900 percent of everything is crap?

I mean that in the realm of programming languages 1 percent is not crap.

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

#136059

Fromjacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>
Date2018-10-02 23:53 +0200
Message-ID<pp0pca$4cv$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#136017
Le 02/10/2018 à 21:34, already5chosen@yahoo.com a écrit :
> I mean that in the realm of programming languages 1 percent is not crap.

I would answer that 100% of the statistics presented in newsgroups are crap!

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

#136067

FromJames Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date2018-10-02 19:30 -0400
Message-ID<pp0v30$4a8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#136017
On 10/02/2018 03:34 PM, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:00:22 PM UTC+3, Ike Naar wrote:
>> On 2018-10-02, already5chosen@yahoo.com <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>>> Sturgeon's law says that ninety percent of everything is crap.
>>> I am afraid that it does not apply to the realm of programming languages.
>>> Off by one order of magnitude at least.
>>
>> Which way?
>> Do you mean that, in the realm of programming languages, 9 percent
>> of everything is crap? Or do you mean that, in the realm of programming
>> languages, 900 percent of everything is crap?
> 
> I mean that in the realm of programming languages 1 percent is not crap.

The only number mentioned in your message was ninety percent. If you
meant that the residual ten percent was off by an order of magnitude,
you should have at least mentioned that number directly.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web