FAQ incorrect?

[nroberts]

In the faq for this group:

Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

A: There are two valid declarations:

int main(void)
int main(int argc, char **argv)

although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

int main()

int main(argc, argv)
int argc; char **argv;

.......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html

The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecifie d" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

Another faq claiming to represent this group has the following text for
the same Q:

A: Either int main(), int main(void), or int main(int argc,
char *argv[]) (with alternate spellings of argc and *argv[]
obviously allowed). See also questions 11.12b to 11.15 below.

References: ISO Sec. 5.1.2.2.1, Sec. G.5.1; H&S Sec. 20.1 p.
416; CT&P Sec. 3.10 pp. 50-51.

............... http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/

It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).

[Rod Pemberton]

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote in message
news:Mf******** ************@bt .com...

The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss

K&R

C, C90, /and/ C99.

Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements. Do you
actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you understand
that it is the people who have no chance of entering a higher paid field:
physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer, or architect, etc... that
become computer programmers?

I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers. The good
computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart, fair ability to
think by themselves, decent ability to find and correct errors, etc..) were
always easily lost in their own worlds and easily confused by common
everyday events, and usually couldn't _both_ read and implement a
specification.. .(so it always took two). I still know dozens of programmers
who can't program a register or set and clear bits. And, from conversations
on other NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.
Rod Pemberton

[Dann Corbit]

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bi tfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:11******** *****@dscnews2. dcccd.edu...

>
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote in message
news:Mf******** ************@bt .com...

>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss

K&R

>C, C90, /and/ C99.

Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements. Do you
actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you understand
that it is the people who have no chance of entering a higher paid field:
physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer, or architect, etc... that
become computer programmers?

Did you know that 10 years ago there were 2,000 millionaires at Microsoft?

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.

I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers. The
good
computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart, fair ability to
think by themselves, decent ability to find and correct errors, etc..)
were
always easily lost in their own worlds and easily confused by common
everyday events, and usually couldn't _both_ read and implement a
specification.. .(so it always took two). I still know dozens of
programmers
who can't program a register or set and clear bits. And, from
conversations
on other NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.

My experience with programmers is not like yours. I wonder where you have
worked. I have run into a few incompetants, but they are unusual. I also
have a friend who has 500,000 lines of code perfectly memorized in his head.
He's at the other end of the spectrum.

Rod Pemberton

[Morris Dovey]

Rod Pemberton (in 11************* @dscnews2.dcccd .edu) said:

| "Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote in message
| news:Mf******** ************@bt .com...
|| The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the
|| kind of people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup
|| might discuss K&R C, C90, /and/ C99.
|
| Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements.
| Do you actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

Must be a troll - no one could be this clueless. At least he
recognizes that Richard is at the /other/ end of the bell-shaped
curve...

| What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you
| understand that it is the people who have no chance of entering a
| higher paid field: physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer,
| or architect, etc... that become computer programmers?

Not very convincing assertion in this forum. Perhaps he really is
clueless...

| I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers.
| The good computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart,
| fair ability to think by themselves, decent ability to find and
| correct errors, etc..) were always easily lost in their own worlds
| and easily confused by common everyday events, and usually couldn't
| _both_ read and implement a specification.. .(so it always took
| two). I still know dozens of programmers who can't program a
| register or set and clear bits. And, from conversations on other
| NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.

Ah, a bottom-feeder (they swim in schools).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

[Richard Heathfield]

Rod Pemberton said:

>
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote in message
news:Mf******** ************@bt .com...

>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss

K&R

>C, C90, /and/ C99.

Ha Ha! Hilarious!

You are easily amused.

I don't know how you can make such statements.

I use a keyboard for typing the statement at a computer running a news
client. The news client takes care of posting the message to my news
server.

Do you actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

How could I possibly have any real programming experience, and yet disagree
with you? It just doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

What people do you think become programmers in the US?

I never mentioned the US. I also was not talking about "programmer s" in
general, but about "good programmers" - the kind that can spot adjectives,
the kind that realise there's more to the world than the US, the kind that
are capable of thinking clearly, as a good programmer must be able to do.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

jacob navia said:

>int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short of
a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

>
The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss K&R
C, C90, /and/ C99.

Are you sure? Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C. Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people. Not every one lives C : they use C to live.

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

>jacob navia said:

>>int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short
of a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

Pedantic? Yes. Unnecessary? I'm not convinced.

>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss
K&R C, C90, /and/ C99.

Are you sure?

Yes.

Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C.

Sure. So do I. I doubt whether I've had to touch more than a dozen or so K&R
C programs, ever. Although I've taken the trouble to learn about C99, I
don't actually use it (except insofar as I have modified my C style to make
my programs legal in C99 as well as in C90). So I, too, only use one
"standard" of C. That doesn't mean I am necessarily confused by the fact
that this newsgroup might discuss programs written in K&R C or C99.

Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people.

Ideally, there would be one standard. This isn't an ideal world. But it is
possible to deal with the fact of multiple standards without making too
much of a fuss about it. And, when I'm giving advice to someone whose name
I don't recognise (and therefore might reasonably be expected to be new to
the group), I tend to play down the whole C90 vs C99 thing - not mentioning
it unless it's relevant, and if it /is/ relevant then only mentioning the
bits I have to, in as non-polemical a way as I can manage. If everybody
were like me, this newsgroup would be a perfect place. :-)

Not every one lives C : they use C to live.

I don't understand. <g,d&r>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

Richard said:

>Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

>>jacob navia said:
int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short
of a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

Pedantic? Yes. Unnecessary? I'm not convinced.

Which probably indicates you spend too long programming and not enough
in the real world. The thread had got to a depth where real programmers
were discussing. It is impolite and cocky, IMO, to point out an obvious
typo. After all, good programmers dont get so easily confused ... :-;

>>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss
K&R C, C90, /and/ C99.

Are you sure?

Yes.

I'm not. One of those beg to differ points I suppose.

>Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C.

Sure. So do I. I doubt whether I've had to touch more than a dozen or so K&R
C programs, ever. Although I've taken the trouble to learn about C99, I
don't actually use it (except insofar as I have modified my C style to make
my programs legal in C99 as well as in C90). So I, too, only use one
"standard" of C. That doesn't mean I am necessarily confused by the fact
that this newsgroup might discuss programs written in K&R C or C99.

Why would it? You've just advertised your knowledge of the others.

>

>Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people.

Ideally, there would be one standard. This isn't an ideal world. But
it is

Yes. We know. This is why this thread is now developing.

possible to deal with the fact of multiple standards without making too
much of a fuss about it. And, when I'm giving advice to someone whose name
I don't recognise (and therefore might reasonably be expected to be new to
the group), I tend to play down the whole C90 vs C99 thing - not mentioning
it unless it's relevant, and if it /is/ relevant then only mentioning the
bits I have to, in as non-polemical a way as I can manage. If
everybody

This is good practice : no doubt about it.

were like me, this newsgroup would be a perfect place. :-)

>Not every one lives C : they use C to live.

I don't understand. <g,d&r>

??

[Default User]

Dann Corbit wrote:

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bi tfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:11******** *****@dscnews2. dcccd.edu...

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you
understand that it is the people who have no chance of entering a
higher paid field: physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer,
or architect, etc... that become computer programmers?

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.

Remember that Pemberton is a troll. You're better off killfiling or at
least ignoring his rants.

Naturally, many current programmers were (and are still) engineers.

Brian

[Default User]

Morris Dovey wrote:

Rod Pemberton (in 11************* @dscnews2.dcccd .edu) said:

[some blither]

Must be a troll

Yes. His goal is to disrupt the newsgroup.

Brian

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Rod Pemberton said:

[who cares]

You are easily amused.

Why feed the troll?


Brian