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.

[jameskuyper]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

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

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]

....

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

Most of them see no reason to coin another word, because they see no
fault with the one they are currently using. The fact that you
disagree wouldn't matter to them.

....

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.)

There is an exact parallel: in both cases they would be objecting to
being called by a name that they considered to be incorrect. Whether
or not you agree that the name is incorrect, its perceived
incorrectness is precisely the reason they would consider it
offensive.
There is a difference, of course - many British citizens would object
to being call English for reasons in addition to it being an incorrect
term, based upon their own personal feelings about the English.
Obviously, that wouldn't be an issue with Usanian, because the average
US citizen has never even heard the term, and therefore has no
negative associations to connect with it.

I'm going to try to describe the views of a large diverse group of
people that I don't agree with. I'm going to simplify the description
by pretending that they can be characterized by a single point of
view. With that in mind, I think that point of view would be that
"America" and "American" are a noun and an adjective that each
uniquely refer to the United States of America, except when they occur
in combination with either "North" or "South", in which case the
combined phrase refers to a continent. "The Americas" is a noun phrase
refers to both continents; there is no adjective that refers to both
continents, and little need for one.

If I expected English to be a logical language, I might find that
confusing. Since it obviously isn't, I don't. While your point of view
might be more logical, in US dialects of English those terms are in
use with essentially the meanings listed above, far more often than
the word "Usanian", and that's likely to remain true indefinitely. All
I can say about the difference between those meanings and yours are
that you're speaking a different but closely related language from the
one that they are speaking, and that I'm fluent in both languages.

[jameskuyper]

Default User wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

....

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.

If you're referring to me, keep in mind that I don't share your point
of view, I merely expressed an understanding of it. In particular, I
do not believe that objections to the use of "America" as a synonym
for "USA" stem solely from malicious intent (though I am sure that
many people who do have malicious intent do in fact object to that
usage).

[Richard Heathfield]

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

Richard Heathfield wrote:

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

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]

...

>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

Most of them see no reason to coin another word, because they see no
fault with the one they are currently using. The fact that you
disagree wouldn't matter to them.

Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

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.)

There is an exact parallel: in both cases they would be objecting to
being called by a name that they considered to be incorrect.

That's quite a weak parallel. A stronger parallel would be that of the
English (or, if you prefer, the British) deciding that the term "European"
should apply uniquely to them, and considering as incorrect the idea that
"European" might apply to others. (My own view is rather different, in
that I don't consider the UK to be part of Europe - but that's merely a
symptom of a self-consciously parochial affectation, adopted for its
amusement value, and in any case it's by the by.)

If the British were to co-opt the term "European", accepting it only as a
self-description, the French, German, Italian, Spanish and other European
populations would be (rightly) scathing.

Whether
or not you agree that the name is incorrect, its perceived
incorrectness is precisely the reason they would consider it
offensive.

It has long been my experience that people are rarely offended by
incorrectness. Otherwise, they would speak more carefully, write more
carefully, drive more carefully, think more carefully, and possibly even
vote more carefully.

There is a difference, of course - many British citizens would object
to being call English for reasons in addition to it being an incorrect
term, based upon their own personal feelings about the English.
Obviously, that wouldn't be an issue with Usanian, because the average
US citizen has never even heard the term, and therefore has no
negative associations to connect with it.

Right. Let's take a parallel term that I've seen noised around the place -
"Ukian" - I've never seen a formal definition, but it seems reasonable to
assume that it is intended to describe the people of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I consider "Ukian" to be an ugly word, and I don't use it myself. But I'm
not *offended* by it. That would be ludicrous.

<snip>

All
I can say about the difference between those meanings and yours are
that you're speaking a different but closely related language from the
one that they are speaking, and that I'm fluent in both languages.

Ah, I'm afraid my multilingual skills pale in comparison to yours. :-)

--
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]

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

Default User wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

...

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.

If you're referring to me, keep in mind that I don't share your point
of view, I merely expressed an understanding of it.

Fair enough. I'll stand alone then.

Brian

[Joe Wright]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

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

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

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

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]

...

>>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

Most of them see no reason to coin another word, because they see no
fault with the one they are currently using. The fact that you
disagree wouldn't matter to them.

Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

>>>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.)

There is an exact parallel: in both cases they would be objecting to
being called by a name that they considered to be incorrect.

That's quite a weak parallel. A stronger parallel would be that of the
English (or, if you prefer, the British) deciding that the term "European"
should apply uniquely to them, and considering as incorrect the idea that
"European" might apply to others. (My own view is rather different, in
that I don't consider the UK to be part of Europe - but that's merely a
symptom of a self-consciously parochial affectation, adopted for its
amusement value, and in any case it's by the by.)

If the British were to co-opt the term "European", accepting it only as a
self-description, the French, German, Italian, Spanish and other European
populations would be (rightly) scathing.

>Whether
or not you agree that the name is incorrect, its perceived
incorrectnes s is precisely the reason they would consider it
offensive.

It has long been my experience that people are rarely offended by
incorrectness. Otherwise, they would speak more carefully, write more
carefully, drive more carefully, think more carefully, and possibly even
vote more carefully.

>There is a difference, of course - many British citizens would object
to being call English for reasons in addition to it being an incorrect
term, based upon their own personal feelings about the English.
Obviously, that wouldn't be an issue with Usanian, because the average
US citizen has never even heard the term, and therefore has no
negative associations to connect with it.

Right. Let's take a parallel term that I've seen noised around the place -
"Ukian" - I've never seen a formal definition, but it seems reasonable to
assume that it is intended to describe the people of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I consider "Ukian" to be an ugly word, and I don't use it myself. But I'm
not *offended* by it. That would be ludicrous.

<snip>

>All
I can say about the difference between those meanings and yours are
that you're speaking a different but closely related language from the
one that they are speaking, and that I'm fluent in both languages.

Ah, I'm afraid my multilingual skills pale in comparison to yours. :-)

I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard. Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography. No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South American,
rather in terms of our nationality. Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian,
Argentinian. And American because our nation is United States of America.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Richard Heathfield]

Joe Wright said:

<snip>

I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard.

Well, that's certainly a point of view. :-)

Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography.

Sure. "America" is a geographical term. Your nation is named not "America"
but "United States of America", right?

No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South American,
rather in terms of our nationality.

Then may I suggest that you start describing yourselves with a national
term, rather than a continental one? Just an idea. :-)

Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian,
Argentinian. And American because our nation is United States of America.

Canada -Canadian
Mexico -Mexican
Brazil -Brazilian
Argentina -Argentinian
United States of America -United States of American (for which "Usanian"
is a convenient contraction).

The pattern seems clear to me.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.

If not, then neither is it a correct description of citizens of the USA.

Just remind me how many angels it was? :-)

--
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

[Doug Miller]

In article <5O************ *********@bt.co m>, rj*@see.sig.inv alid wrote:

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

Fine - given that you live in the U.K., we'll refer to you henceforth as a Ukian.

[Doug Miller]

In article <AI************ *************** ***@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.inv alid wrote:

>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil think of
themselves as "Americans" , do you?

[Doug Miller]

In article <6g************ @mid.individual .net>, "Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>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.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular word,
phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word, phrase, etc. *is*
being deliberately offensive.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

In article <5O************ *********@bt.co m>, rj*@see.sig.inv alid wrote:

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

Fine - given that you live in the U.K., we'll refer to you henceforth as
a Ukian.

Yes, I'm aware of the term. I don't particularly like it (any more than I
like, say, runner beans or pilchards), but neither am I offended by it.

--
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