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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #10262

Re: Hypocrites

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Hypocrites
Date 2011-09-14 19:11 -0700
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <lnhb4ea72e.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <ln39fzby0w.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <j4q0e1$9q3$1@dont-email.me> <j4q4kt$lgr$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lnty8f9bpa.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <j4r003$b64$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Le 14/09/11 21:16, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> The point is that the language has a standard, and it has a standard
>> for good reasons.
>
> HYPOCRITE
>
> 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
> principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially
> a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
>
> 2. A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, 
> especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or 
> her public statements.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite

Thank you, I know what the word means.  Like most people, I am
probably a hypocrite in some ways (small ones, I hope), but you
are hardly in a position to judge.

> Thompson and heathfield rejected the 1999 C standard in countless
> posts from 1999 to last year or maybe even today.

That is a lie.

(Well, maybe it's not a deliberate lie.  I suppose it's possible
that you actually believe it, but I'm not sure that's better.)

I have pointed out the fact that the C99 standard has not been as
widely adopted as the C90 standard, and offered the advice that
writing code that depends on C99-specific features makes that code
less portable than it would be if it used only C90-specific features.
I have also stated repeatedly that I sincerely wish that C99 had been
more widely adopted.  I have fairly consistently said that if 100%
portability is not an issue, then there's nothing wrong with using
C99-specific features; if you can count on having C99-compliant
compilers, go ahead and use them.  If you can count on having
compilers that implement enough of C99 for your purposes, that's
fine too.  And I have praised you personally for doing your part
by releasing a compiler that seems to implement most or all of the
C99 standard.

I am not a C compiler implementer, so there's very little I can do
to improve the level of support for C99.

I do not advocate avoiding C99 altogether.  I advocate being aware of
the implications of the regrettably spotty level of support for it,
and making decisions based on that knowledge.

Incidentally, Richard Heathfield has not posted here in over a year.
Perhaps it's time for you stop obsessing over him.

And the aspects of the standard that you were ignoring, which led
to my comment quoted above, are common to both C90 and C99.

> When I posted here code that was conforming to the C99 standard
> they would again and again point out that "it is not portable since no
> implementations exists", even if many implementation appeared
> during all this years. They always again  and again said that the only
> standard C they accepted was C 1989, the only "portable" C.
>
> They never ( of course) posted any code.

That is a lie.  (Maybe; see above.)

I have posted code.  It happens that most of what I post here is
answers to questions.  Those answers often, but not always, include
code snippets.  They sometimes include complete programs, but they
tend to be fairly small.  Since you apparently haven't killfiled
me, you must be aware that I do post code.  Why would you claim
that I don't?  If you're going to lie about someone, you'd be well
advised not to do so in a forum where the proof is easily available.

> Of course this doesn't bother them now, since most people that 
> participated in those discussions have left this group.
>
> Now they start posing with phrases like the one above.

jacob, I have nothing against you personally (or against your
compiler) apart from your obsessive delusion that I am somehow
persecuting you and your repeated unjustifed insults against me.
(I'm not the only target, but I appear to be the primary one
-- along with Richard Heathfield, of course.)  I have exercised
extreme patience with you, probably more than I should have, mostly
because you do have some good ideas, you are technically competent,
and you're the author of a C99 compiler.  On August 10, I sent you
an e-mail (check your inbox) asking why you treat me as a personal
enemy and asking if we can discuss this like reasonable human beings;
you never responded.

At long last, I have had enough of your crap.  I don't know what
your problem is, I don't know what your problem *with me* is, and
I am not qualified either to diagnose it or to help you with it.
I am sick and tired of every technical criticism being treated as
a personal attack, and of of being falsely accused of conspiring
against you.

You recently said, without provocation, that this newsgroup would
be better without me.  I'm not going to say that it would be better
without you, but I have little doubt that it will be a more pleasant
place *for me* if you effectively vanish from my view of it.

I am seriously annoyed with you, but I bear you no ill will, and I
wish you the best of luck.  I have no advice to offer you because
you surely would not take it.

*plonk*

And the horse you rode in on.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-09 22:53 +0200
  Re: hexump.c tea strainer <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-09-09 21:06 +0000
    Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-09 23:57 +0200
    Re: hexump.c NicStevens <nic.stevens@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 13:22 -0700
  Re: hexump.c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 09:18 +1200
    Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-09 23:59 +0200
  Re: hexump.c Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-09 22:29 +0000
    Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 00:39 +0200
      Re: hexump.c Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-09 22:53 +0000
        Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 00:58 +0200
        Re: hexump.c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-13 06:44 +0000
          Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-13 10:33 +0200
            Re: hexump.c Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-13 18:02 +0200
            Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-13 16:36 -0400
              Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-13 22:44 +0200
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 13:31 +0100
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 15:27 +0200
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-14 11:49 -0400
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 13:27 -0700
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-14 20:59 +0000
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 22:20 +0100
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-14 17:20 -0400
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-15 01:51 +0000
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 19:29 -0700
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 19:21 -0700
                Re: Teaching C Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-14 19:58 -0700
                Re: Teaching C Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-09-14 21:55 -0600
                Re: Teaching C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-15 06:54 -0400
                Re: Teaching C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-15 11:58 -0700
                Re: Teaching C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 12:57 -0800
                Re: Teaching C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-15 14:25 +0100
                Re: Teaching C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-16 22:00 +0000
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-14 12:54 -0400
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-14 13:26 -0400
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 19:33 +0200
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jameskuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-14 11:33 -0700
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:17 +0200
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-16 11:47 -0400
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-14 20:43 +0000
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 22:35 +0100
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) gordonb.8a7i1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-09-14 17:31 -0500
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 19:32 +0200
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-16 11:27 -0400
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-16 08:49 -0700
                Re: Teaching C (was Re: hexump.c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-17 15:04 -0400
            Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-13 20:31 -0700
              Re: hexump.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-14 03:22 -0700
              Re: hexump.c "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-14 11:40 +0100
                Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 13:54 +0200
                Re: hexump.c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-14 13:50 +0100
                Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 11:35 -0700
                Re: hexump.c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-14 19:12 +0000
                Re: hexump.c John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 15:31 -0700
                Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 00:59 +0200
                Re: hexump.c Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-14 23:14 +0000
                Re: hexump.c John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 08:52 -0700
                Re: hexump.c Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-09-14 21:22 +0200
                Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:26 +0200
                Re: hexump.c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 07:32 +1200
                Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:44 +0200
                Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 13:49 -0700
                Re: hexump.c Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-16 00:50 +0300
                Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-15 18:34 -0700
                Re: hexump.c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 12:16 -0700
                Hypocrites jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-14 21:40 +0200
                Re: Hypocrites Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-14 19:11 -0700
                Re: hexump.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-14 15:05 +0100
                Re: hexump.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-14 07:56 -0700
                Re: hexump.c "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-14 17:23 +0100
              Re: hexump.c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-14 19:12 +0000
              Re: hexump.c John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 15:24 -0700
      Re: hexump.c gordonb.ik17p@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-09-09 18:16 -0500
        Re: hexump.c Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-12 22:24 +0000
  Re: hexump.c "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-09-09 20:33 -0400
    Re: hexump.c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 12:42 +1200
      Re: hexump.c "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-09-10 17:16 -0400
    Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 10:03 +0200
  Re: hexump.c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-10 10:04 +0100
    Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 11:41 +0200
      Re: hexump.c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-10 05:51 -0400
        Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 12:38 +0200
          Re: hexump.c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-10 17:53 +0100
  Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 12:46 +0200
    Re: hexump.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-10 13:03 +0100
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 15:34 +0200
    Re: hexump.c "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-09-10 17:37 -0400
      Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-11 00:10 +0200
        Re: hexump.c Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-10 21:03 -0700
  Re: hexump.c Barry Schwarz <schwarz45@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 00:37 -0700
    Re: hexump.c jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-11 13:56 +0200

csiph-web