UNIX, C, Perl

[Pilcrow]

Given that UNIX, including networking, is almost entirely coded in C,
how come so many things are almost impossible in ordinary C? Examples:
Network and internet access, access to UNIX interprocess controls and
communication, locale determination, EBCDIC/ASCII discrimination, etc.

Almost all of these are easy in Perl. Why isn't there a mechanism like
perl modules to allow easy extentions for facilities like these? Isn't
anyone working on this problem? or is it all being left for proprietary
systems?

[jacob navia]

Flash Gordon wrote:

>
Are you claiming that C should be used as a general solution to ALL
programming problems?

Obviously Gwyn thinks that C is good for "System programming", where
it is unclear why system programming needs gets() and trigraphs...

You apparently are of the same opinion.

By leaving application programming for other languages, you
effectively destroy C.

Application programming should be done in "evolved" languages
and C should be kept at the level of gets() with a library
conceived in the 70s and still bug-compatible with that
one.

I am claiming that C can be used for general application
programming. It needs just a single modification
(operator overloading) and a rewrite of the standard library
to be able to be very useful in application programming.

Why?

Because it is a *simple* language. Simple languages are easier to
understand and use, and have less surface for bugs.

I am opposed to most current trends in language development exactly
because I think that simplicity is a virtue and simple things are
basically much more powerful than complicated ones.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Pilcrow]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:18:45 +0000 (UTC), Antoninus Twink
<no****@nospam. invalidwrote:

>On 3 Sep 2008 at 20:07, Pilcrow wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:07:00 +0200, jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c om>
wrote:

>>>Exactly. C has "modules", and the interface is simple and efficient.
There is an enormous amount of C libraries around.

I am so glad to hear that. Perhaps someone would be so kind as to post
a list of them? At least the more important ones. URL's would be nice.

http://packages.debian.org/stable/libdevel/

Thank you sir; that's a beginning.

[jameskuyper]

jacob navia wrote:

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

While such a suggestion is on-topic in that group, it is still not the
right place to make your proposal. Only a small number of committee
members participate in that group. If you really want anything to
change, you have to present your proposal to the committee, or at
least convince one of the committee members that your ideas have
sufficient merit to for that committee member to present them for you.
The committee members ore the ONLY ones who can actually make it
happen - nothing you say to anyone else will have much effect.

I need 10 thousand euros (15 000 US$) to buy the AFNOR
(French ISO organization) to present my proposal after
I got sponsored by some company.

Then join ANSI instead. Membership is not restricted to organizations;
individuals can join as well. It is not restricted to US citizens; in
fact a large number of its members are foreign citizens like you who
were unable to afford their own national body's prohibitively high
fees. The Basic membership fee is currently $495, easily within the
range that could be afforded by most professionals. Actually attending
meetings is required only if you want to be a voting member.

I confess to a certain amount of uncertainty about the organizational
connections here; hopefully someone here can fill out the details. I
know that ANSI is listed as participating in ISO/IEC JTC 1, but that
the US Technical Advisory Group for ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 is INCITS.
INCITS membership is not cheap, and I could find nothing to suggest
that it is open to individuals. I was under the impression that it is
possible to participate in the C standardization process as an
individual member of ANSI, but I can't find anything that clarifies
that it is possible to do so without being a member of INCITS.

Further piece of advice: if and when you actually make your proposals
to the committee, please try to lay off on the slanderous accusations
that pepper your typical postings in this newsgroup. Even if those
accusations were true, you couldn't possibly expect accusations of
idiocy, incompetence, and laziness to make the people you so accuse
more willing to cooperate with you, could you?

I have never said that they are idiots or lazy or whatever. You
are just lying (as you often do)

No, I'm just summarizing. You've accused the committee of wanting C to
be a language restricted to use on legacy code, with no new
development. With no new development, it would be pointless for
committee members to paying hard-earned money for membership fees that
buy them the privilege of putting in hard work on changes to the
standard. Who in their right minds would make such sacrifices to
achieve such a pointless goal? By making such a ridiculous accusation
you're implying that they are at least idiots, if not certifiably
insane.

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:

>>Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:
[...]

They will never do anything since their main objective is to preserve
C as a language that should run legacy code with no new development,
as Mr Gwyn explained in comp.std.c.
I don't recall Doug Gwyn ever saying that, and I'm certainly not
going
to take your word for it. Please post the Message-ID of an article in
which he said that.

[snip]

This was written by Gwyn the 10/4/2007 7:43 PM, with Message ID
<47************ ***@null.netThr ead name "C needs a BOOST"
<quote>
Ian Collins wrote:

My conclusion has to be that the demand isn't there.

The very age of C might be partly responsible, in that the vast
amount of existing C applications already embed some solutions
to the requirements for lists, etc. The maintenance programmer
(a)is unlikely to rework the existing app just to use some new
standardized interface for the same thing; and (b) has to
continue to maintain whatever libraries he has been using.

The only real use for such a library would be for new program
development, once the learning hurdle has been overcome. Much
new development really ought to use higher-level languages in
the first place.

There is a difference between your claim that he said there should be
"no new development", and his actual statement that "Much new
development really ought to use higher-level languages in the first
place."

Just as I've come to expect, you have grossly misrepresented what he
actually wrote.

[...]

Yes, you read correctly.
"Much new development really ought to use higher level languages"
than C.

This is in essence what I said.

Nonsense.

I remember asking him:
<quote>
Actually then, you say it is better not to develop anything new in C.
<end quote>

Then he answered:
<quote>
That's not what I said. I said that *much* new development ought
to be done in higher-level languages. (In fact, it often is.)

He even told you that you had misrepresented his words.

[snip]

He says "it is not what I said"... then repeats everything again.

C is good only for systems work, etc etc, new development or
application dveelopment should be done in better languages, etc.

Which, one more time, is not what he said.

Learn to read.

--
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"

[jameskuyper]

jacob navia wrote:

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

jacob navia wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:

[...]

They will never do anything since their main objective is to preserve
C as a language that should run legacy code with no new development,
as Mr Gwyn explained in comp.std.c.
I don't recall Doug Gwyn ever saying that, and I'm certainly not going
to take your word for it. Please post the Message-ID of an article in
which he said that.

....

This was written by Gwyn the 10/4/2007 7:43 PM, with Message ID
<47************ ***@null.netThr ead name "C needs a BOOST"

....

development, once the learning hurdle has been overcome. Much
new development really ought to use higher-level languages in
the first place.

....

Yes, you read correctly.
"Much new development really ought to use higher level languages"
than C.

Quite a reaonable statement, and not at all what you claimed he said.

This is in essence what I said.

No, "much" is quite different from "all". The first makes for an
entirely reasonable statement; replacing "much" with "all" would
produce a preposterous statement, and one that Doug Gwyn did NOT make.

I remember asking him:
<quote>
Actually then, you say it is better not to develop anything new in C.
<end quote>

Then he answered:
<quote>
That's not what I said. I said that *much* new development ought

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^

to be done in higher-level languages. (In fact, it often is.)

Note the use of the word "much" rather than "all".

That means that the potential benefit of new facilities for such
applications is diminished.

I would like that you claify this of course. Did I understand you
correctly?

I doubt that you did.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^

My opinion, based on considerable experience in this area, is that
C remains the best choice for much "systems implementation" work,
but that it is more cost-effective to use other, higher-level
languages for many "applicatio ns".

Note the key word "many". Not "all", "many". Understand the
difference.

....

He says "it is not what I said"... then repeats everything again.

Yes, because you quite clearly did not understand it the first time.
You still do not - you still make the mistake of confusing "many" with
"all". Are you consistent in this misconception? If I told you that
the total value of all of my stocks exceeded $500K, and offered to
sell you "many" of my stocks for a mere $200K, would you be under the
misapprehension that I was offering you a good deal? If so, I've got
quite a number of similarly "good deals" I'd be willing to discuss
with you.

[Bartc]

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgw rote in message
news:ln******** ****@nuthaus.mi b.org...

jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:
[...]
>
>They will never do anything since their main objective is to preserve
>C as a language that should run legacy code with no new development,
>as Mr Gwyn explained in comp.std.c.
I don't recall Doug Gwyn ever saying that, and I'm certainly not
going
to take your word for it. Please post the Message-ID of an article in
which he said that.

[snip]

>This was written by Gwyn the 10/4/2007 7:43 PM, with Message ID
<47*********** ****@null.netTh read name "C needs a BOOST"
<quote>
Ian Collins wrote:

>My conclusion has to be that the demand isn't there.

The very age of C might be partly responsible, in that the vast
amount of existing C applications already embed some solutions
to the requirements for lists, etc. The maintenance programmer
(a)is unlikely to rework the existing app just to use some new
standardized interface for the same thing; and (b) has to
continue to maintain whatever libraries he has been using.

The only real use for such a library would be for new program
development, once the learning hurdle has been overcome. Much
new development really ought to use higher-level languages in
the first place.

There is a difference between your claim that he said there should be
"no new development", and his actual statement that "Much new
development really ought to use higher-level languages in the first
place."

Just as I've come to expect, you have grossly misrepresented what he
actually wrote.

[...]

>Yes, you read correctly.
"Much new development really ought to use higher level languages"
than C.

This is in essence what I said.

Nonsense.

Reading the quoted text of Mr Gwyn, it does appear to show considerable bias
against interesting new developments in C, in fact appearing to be backward
looking rather than forward looking.

The attitude seemed to be that there's no point in adding new stuff to C
because (a) it's not much use for programmers maintaining existing code; (b)
for new code, it's better to use a 'better' language. So, forget it.

And, C apparently only just cuts it for systems programming, let alone
general programming. In it's present standard form, he might be right, but
seemed completely against the idea of improving C to make it more suitable,
which is what Jacob is trying to do.

>C is good only for systems work, etc etc, new development or
application dveelopment should be done in better languages, etc.

Which, one more time, is not what he said.

Er, I think he did:

"
It is (in my opinion) a mistake to try to push C (in any variant)
as a general solution for all programming problems. It's a
good choice for the systems programming that it was designed for,
although it still has deficiencies even for that. I would rather
the time spent discussing directions for C concentrate more on
remedies for its remaining deficiencies for systems work than on
trying to support applications where there are better choices.
"
--
Bartc

[Keith Thompson]

"Bartc" <[e-mail] rites:

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgw rote in message
news:ln******** ****@nuthaus.mi b.org...

>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:

>>Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.c omwrites:
>[...]
>>
>>They will never do anything since their main objective is to preserve
>>C as a language that should run legacy code with no new development,
>>as Mr Gwyn explained in comp.std.c.
>I don't recall Doug Gwyn ever saying that, and I'm certainly not
>going
>to take your word for it. Please post the Message-ID of an article in
>which he said that.

[snip]

>>This was written by Gwyn the 10/4/2007 7:43 PM, with Message ID
<47********** *****@null.netT hread name "C needs a BOOST"

<quote>
Ian Collins wrote:
My conclusion has to be that the demand isn't there.

The very age of C might be partly responsible, in that the vast
amount of existing C applications already embed some solutions
to the requirements for lists, etc. The maintenance programmer
(a)is unlikely to rework the existing app just to use some new
standardize d interface for the same thing; and (b) has to
continue to maintain whatever libraries he has been using.

The only real use for such a library would be for new program
development , once the learning hurdle has been overcome. Much
new development really ought to use higher-level languages in
the first place.

There is a difference between your claim that he said there should be
"no new development", and his actual statement that "Much new
development really ought to use higher-level languages in the first
place."

Just as I've come to expect, you have grossly misrepresented what he
actually wrote.

[...]

>>Yes, you read correctly.
"Much new development really ought to use higher level languages"
than C.

This is in essence what I said.

Nonsense.

Reading the quoted text of Mr Gwyn, it does appear to show
considerable bias against interesting new developments in C, in fact
appearing to be backward looking rather than forward looking.

Perhaps, but there's a clear contradiction between what Doug Gwyn
actually said and what jacob nava claims Doug Gwyn said.

Doug Gywn said that "Much new development really ought to use
higher-level languages in the first place."

jacob navia claimed that Doug Gwyn said that "their [the committee's]
main objective is to preserve C as a language that should run legacy
code with no new development".

You can agree or disagree with what Doug actually said, but it's very
different from jacob's (deliberate?) misrepresentati on.

[snip]

--
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]

jacob navia said:

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

<snip>

>Further piece of advice: if and when you actually make your proposals
to the committee, please try to lay off on the slanderous accusations
that pepper your typical postings in this newsgroup. Even if those
accusations were true, you couldn't possibly expect accusations of
idiocy, incompetence, and laziness to make the people you so accuse
more willing to cooperate with you, could you?

I have never said that they are idiots or lazy or whatever. You
are just lying (as you often do)

If I've counted properly, it has taken till your sixth reply in this
subthread to start with the stupid accusations. What took you so long?
Should we be worried? Do you need a doctor?

--
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]

Malcolm McLean said:

>
"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb .me.ukwrote in message

>This is the elephant in the room as far as C is concerned. Because
there is no agreed way to program a flexible array, a list or a map,
everyone writes their own, or uses a published one that is
incompatible with all the other published ones out there. It is often
a lot of work just to coax two libraries to work together.

I still have some "give me 64" mugs left.

I'd have thought you'd still have all but one of them left (presumably
you've reserved one for yourself).

I trust you are now joining the campaign for 64 bit ints.

Why? They're legal already. In any case, one day they will be too small.

--
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

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

>
<quote>
Ian Collins wrote:

My conclusion has to be that the demand isn't there.

The very age of C might be partly responsible, in that the vast
amount of existing C applications already embed some solutions
to the requirements for lists, etc. The maintenance programmer
(a)is unlikely to rework the existing app just to use some new
standardized interface for the same thing; and (b) has to
continue to maintain whatever libraries he has been using.

The only real use for such a library would be for new program
development, once the learning hurdle has been overcome. Much
new development really ought to use higher-level languages in
the first place.

By the way, does the C standard committee have an active library group?

Not as a separate entity.

Seeing as you dragged my name into the discussion, I still stick by my
earlier conclusions. There were requirements for higher level
application programming languages with more abstract libraries. C
didn't evolve to fill the gap, so new languages were developed. The
most successful (in terms of adoption) languages aren't the most
expressive, or elegant but the ones with the most useful libraries.
Many of these are well established C libraries wrapped and in a thin
veneer and bundled with the language distribution. C has lost the
mindshare in hosted applications programming and there's little point in
trying to win it back. To do so invites comparisons with that great
English hero King Canute.

One only has to compare the activities of the current C++ and C
committees to see which one is working on an evolving language. I'd be
pleasantly surprised to see the C programming community get as excited
about the next C standard as the C++ programming community is about theirs.

--
Ian Collins.