Why is it dangerous?

[Julian]

'evening.

I'm not new to C and have been programming in it since I was 8 but
here's a strange problem I've never seen before.

When I compile a program from our C course with a windows compiler
there is no problem but when I try to compile it with a linux compiler
it complains that

a_03.c:(.text+0 x4d): warning: the `gets' function is dangerous
and should not be used.

Is linux more dangerous than windows? Where can I download a
non dangerous gets function? I have never used gets before is
there undefined behavior somewhere?
Here is a trimmed down example program from my assignment that
demonstrates the problem

#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>

void main()
{
char *string;
printf("enter string (max 2000 chars): ");
fflush(stdin);
fflush(stdout);
string = (char *)malloc(2001);
if(!string) exit(1);
gets(string);
printf("you entered: %s\n", string);
free(string);
exit(0);
}

On windows with TurboC and Lcc no error is printed. On linux with
gcc it says gets is dangerous.

Please advise my instructor says gcc is overly pedantic.

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.

Hmmmm, no.

Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Default User said:

I don't believe to be well-established at all.

Since you're being so picky about language, perhaps you should
examine the grammar of that sentence more closely.

Are you claiming that Usanians was a typo?

No, I'm pointing out that your complaining about it constitutes a complaint
about language usage. Those who complain about others' language usage are
in a weak position if their own language usage is not perfect.

Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.

Are you seriously going to nitpick about an accurate descriptive
term? That's even weaker.

It's not accurate, it's not even sensible. USA is a recognized
abbreviation.

Yes.

"Usa" is not a word.

Right. But "Usanian" /is/ a word.

To further hang a suffix off it is
ridiculous.

Nobody is forcing you to use it.

It looks silly, and you offend Americans.

Only the vanishingly small percentage of Americans who are both (a)
citizens of the USA and (b) ludicrously thin-skinned.

Whether you want
to admit it or not, the typical term for people from the only nation
with American in its name is "American".

Oh, I admit freely that the word "American" is misused by the vast majority
of people. So what? Most people void main too. That doesn't make it right.

In both the USA and the
UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
knew that.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and in any case lag
behind neologisms by a number of years.

That's true, but they're the best we have.

No, clarity of thought is the best we have.

It also doesn't make all neologisms sensible.

It is true that not all neologisms are sensible.

Further it doesn't address the offensive nature of some.

Now this, I just don't get. How on *earth* is the word "Usanian" offensive?

>If you don't like my use of
language, well, neither are you under any obligation to read my
articles or provide me with help.

I'm also free to complain about your offensive usage.

What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't understand
that at all.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[jameskuyper]

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

....

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

....

It's also insulting to many Americans. But you knew that already.

No, it isn't,

Yes, it is. I understand and sympathize with the reasons why you don't
want to use the term American to describe my fellow citizens. However,
I can assure you that the overwhelming majoring of them are not even
aware of the issue, and most of them would not sympathize even if they
were aware. They would consider it insulting that you called us by any
name other than the "correct" one. They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman, if he wasn't
actually English (most Americans don't even know that such a thing is
even possible, much less understand why it might be considered
insulting). Also, for that particular alternative, many of us, myself
included, would wonder whether a pun somehow connected with the word
"insane" was intended.
[/OT]

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't
understand that at all.

Well Ricky, if you don't understand after what I've told you, I suppose
I won't able to explain it. I guess you could take it on faith.

Brian

[Keith Thompson]

"Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comwrites :

Keith Thompson wrote:

>It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.

Hmmmm, no.

You say you're offended by the term "Usanian". That is of course your
right. But I am now offended by your repeated whining about it,
especially since you appear to be claiming the right to be offended on
my behalf.

At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being *deliberately* offensive.

Better yet, consider that you appear to be the *only* person who holds
this particular opinion, that you have not changed anyone's mind, that
you are not likely to do so in the future, and that *this has nothing
to do with C*. I request that you find another forum for your
complaints on this matter, perhaps private e-mail.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

ja*********@ver izon.net said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]

>Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

...

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

...

It's also insulting to many Americans. But you knew that already.

No, it isn't,

Yes, it is.

Okay, I'll concede that some United States citizens may be dense enough to
be offended by the term.

I understand and sympathize with the reasons why you don't
want to use the term American to describe my fellow citizens.

Thank you.

However,
I can assure you that the overwhelming majoring of them are not even
aware of the issue,

I can believe it. (Sturgeon's Law applies, even to people - and not just
your fellow citizens, I hasten to add.)

and most of them would not sympathize even if they
were aware. They would consider it insulting that you called us by any
name other than the "correct" one.

I accept that "American" is a correct description of citizens of the USA -
just as it is a correct description of Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and
Chileans. Nevertheless, a more localised adjective is useful (just as it
is for Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and Chileans). If "Usanian" is
offensive for some bizarre reason, fine, someone coin another word. (I did
so, many years ago - "Usanese" - but someone pointed out the prior
existence of "Usanian", and I was quite content to drop my term in favour
of one already extant.)

They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman,

I can't see how that would be an insult.

if he wasn't actually English

Ah, that would do it. :-) But I don't see the parallel. I use the term
"Usanian" only to apply to those who are citizens of the USA. Those who
are not citizens of the USA have no grounds for being offended by the
term, since I'm not applying it to them. (And those who are, have no
grounds either, since there's nothing remotely offensive about it.)

(most Americans don't even know that such a thing is
even possible, much less understand why it might be considered
insulting).

Sturgeon's Law again, you see.

Also, for that particular alternative, many of us, myself
included, would wonder whether a pun somehow connected with the word
"insane" was intended.

Not when I use it, it isn't. Purely descriptive - no side, no spin, no pun.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't
understand that at all.

Well Ricky,

Yes, Mr User? That's a silly game to play with a name like yours, but okay,
whatever.

if you don't understand after what I've told you, I suppose
I won't able to explain it. I guess you could take it on faith.

Well, no. You see, I know that lots of people think "faith" means
"believing in stuff even though you know it's not true", but I actually
think it means the opposite - believing in stuff because you know it *is*
true, even when it might seem not to be. When I'm in the dentist's chair,
it is faith in the dentist that keeps me from bolting for the door - I
have faith that she's doing me good, even though she's causing me a
certain amount of pain and a great deal of discomfort. When I'm looking at
a diagnostic message, it is faith in the compiler that leads me to suspect
my own code to be faulty even though I can see absolutely nothing wrong
with it.

Whilst my experience of your contributions to this newsgroup lead me to
respect your knowledge of C, I have no particular reason to have faith in
your ability to be objective about language usage. So the most likely
explanation I have for your apparent lack of objectivity now is that it is
an actual lack of objectivity. No need to take anything on faith.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comwrites :

Keith Thompson wrote:

It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider

giving >Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be
quite an >elegant solution.

Hmmmm, no.

You say you're offended by the term "Usanian". That is of course your
right. But I am now offended by your repeated whining about it,

Ok. And I'm offended by you being offended by my being offended. And so
on.

At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.

Certainly Mr. Heathfield is aware of my feelings on the matter.

Better yet, consider that you appear to be the only person who holds
this particular opinion

One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.

that you have not changed anyone's mind, that
you are not likely to do so in the future, and that *this has nothing
to do with C*. I request that you find another forum for your
complaints on this matter, perhaps private e-mail.

Hmmmm, no. I'm done with it for this time, I think. Next time will be a
new time.


Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that.

So why should I believe *that*? If you aren't prepared to trust reasonable
people to tell the truth, you should not be surprised if they withdraw
their trust from you. I have stated publicly that I do not use the term to
offend, merely to describe. If you don't believe me, well, that's up to
you, but if you think the term "Usanian" is offensive, how do you feel
about the term "liar"?

<snip>

>Better yet, consider that you appear to be the only person who holds
this particular opinion

One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.

Who is the other one? If you mean James Kuyper, it seems to me that his
position on the term is considerably more moderate than yours, and that
therefore he does not share your opinion.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Antoninus Twink]

On 14 Aug 2008 at 22:30, Default User wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>You say you're offended by the term "Usanian".

[snip]

>*this has nothing to do with C*.

Hmmmm, no.

Hmmmm, yes.

I don't mind people discussing HeathField's eccentricities in this group
if they like - it's just the sheer damned hypocrisy that I can't stand.
The Loser and Kuyper and Heathfield are the first to scream "off topic"
at others, but somehow it's a different rule for them when they want to
go on for post after post about some petty idiosyncrasy of RJH.

At least Thomson is consistent in his narrow-minded approach to
"topicality ".