Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rod Pemberton Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: LLVM and Forth Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:06:52 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 65 Message-ID: <20170409150652.1664ede5@_> References: <21153661-abf5-4958-82c7-e3c442b45cb9@googlegroups.com> <065e774c-c5fb-4e68-9489-00b5357142d6@googlegroups.com> <72a319fa-8035-4a17-a5a2-2b2884a57b15@googlegroups.com> <20170405004435.4706b792@_> <20170407033309.1b6469f0@_> NNTP-Posting-Host: ZTD62cW/Uw8bymX5ok+0NA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:56945 On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:48:54 GMT Spiros Bousbouras wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 03:33:09 -0400 > Rod Pemberton wrote: > > Hopefully, those on c.l.c. will not redirect their crap here. I'm > > not even interested in seeing what type of shit those idiots posted > > in response. > > It's a pity you're not interested because they corrected your > numerous mistakes. No, it's a pity that you've attempted to discredit me or anger me, instead of learning something. I used to post comp.lang.c a decade ago. Weren't you there then? I seem to recall your name. What I posted is either directly from the C specifications, the C Rationale, Harbison and Steele's "C: A Reference Manual" or P.J. Plauger's "The Standard C Library", or papers by D.M. Ritchie et.al., or historical behavior. I also know that my understanding of C corresponds with that of one of the original ANSI C committee members (not P.J. Plauger), as I've had conversations with this other fellow. I've been programming since 1981, about 1992 for C. So, yeah, since I posted to c.l.c. in the past, I know how c.l.c. works or did. A few self-proclaimed C experts, like Richard Heathfield or Keith Thompson and their clique, e.g., CBFalconer RIP **PLONK**, beat up other people in an attempt to prove themselves correct by harassing innocent newbs. At that time, Keith knew the C specification well, but didn't understand C itself or how it was compiled. The authors of the failed c.l.c. book "C Unleashed" attempted to prove themselves correct too on occasion. No one there was familiar with the Bell Laboratories papers on C by D.M. Ritchie, B.W. Kernighan, and S.C. Johnson which explained low-level details of how C works. None of them had read ANSI's or ISO's "The C Rationale" and everyone dismissed it. No one there understood that a nul character can be larger in size that a char even though DMR wrote about it in his papers as to why the C specification required it. No one there was familiar with the ANSI C committee's TC's that obsoleted implicit ints due to conflicts with typedef's or that C was no longer an LALR(1) grammar because of typedef's and the implicit int conflict. Many of them would site Steve Summit's C FAQ which had some major errors at the time which have since been corrected. Everyone there complains about some unknown C author by the name of Schildt. People harass Heathfield by asking the same questions over and over because he can't remember anything for more than a few months. AIR, there were only two people there besides me who truly understood C, but they were infrequent posters. One of them might have been Chris Torek ... Perhaps, the other was David Tribble? Or, Eric Sosman? Sorry, I don't recall the other person's name anymore. I'd have to re-read a bunch of posts from the era. Of course, I'm not really interested in rereading the posts from all the assholes, CBFalconer, Flash Gordon, Martin Ambuhl, Mark McIntyre, Keith Thompson, Richard Heathfield, ... Nor am I interested in reading any posts from the current batch of them. There was only one person there who was funny from time to time, Kenny McCormack. Rod Pemberton -- All it takes for humanity to conquer the world's toughest problems is to hope, to believe, to share, and to do, in cooperation.