Cross-platform: Coloured text, Networking, Multithreading

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_=D3_h=C9ilidhe?=]

I'm currently writing a program and I've got in mind to keep it as
portable as possible. In particular I want it to run on Linux and
Windows, but I'm also keeping an open mind to any machine that has a
screen and is capable of Ethernet networking. The program requires
three things that aren't available in the C Standard:
1) Coloured text (for a console application)
2) Raw socket networking
3) Multithreading

For number 1, I've already written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses ANSI escape sequences for Linux, and Win32 API
functions for Windows).

For number 2, I've again written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses Berkeley Sockets for Linux, and winpcap for Windows
-- I would have used Winsock for Windows but Winsock no longer
supports raw sockets).

For number 3, well I'm just about to delve into it now. I see that
somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to Win32, so that
looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go down that road
though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea than to use
pthreads?

[Chris McDonald]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:

>comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.is o-c, making that suggestion redundant.

(not trolling) but the suggestion is *not* redundant.

It comes with the suggestion that the name comp.lang.iso-c would provide a
clearer label for those ill-informed about the current use of comp.lang.c

--
Chris.

[Richard Harter]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:41:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Lorenzo Villari said:

>>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@shell. xmission.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:gf******* **@news.xmissio n.com...

>>>
You will soon learn that this newsgroup is about everything except C.

So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)

Note that Mr McCormack is either lying, incorrect, or making a not very
successful foray into the world of sarcasm.

comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.is o-c, making that suggestion redundant.

For discussing things that aren't ISO C, we already have over 80,000
newsgroups. Why would we need yet another?

It is arguable that there is no group that is about programming
in C, and even that comp.lang.c used to be that group.
Richard Harter, cr*@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.

[Mark McIntyre]

Chris McDonald wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:

>comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.is o-c, making that suggestion redundant.

(not trolling) but the suggestion is *not* redundant.

It comes with the suggestion that the name comp.lang.iso-c would provide a
clearer label for those ill-informed about the current use of comp.lang.c

The groupname field was not designed to be an all encompassing
definition of its purpose.

Take the groups ending in .tv - related to audiovisual entertainment, or
cross-dressing, or the state of Tuvalu, or what? There are alt. groups
that have highly cryptic names on purpose. Do you propose to go through
the entire hierarchy and enforce descriptive names? Won't work. For one
thing, the groupname is too short. For another, defining the group is
the charter or equivalent is for. For a third, if you lurk for a few
days the topicality will be clear. If you still can't figure out the
topicality, you can always ask.

Some servers seem to support a description field, but I suspect few new
users bother to read those.

[Bartc]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:Iq******** *************** *******@bt.com. ..

>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

Yes. He hit my killfile some months ago, for racism, of all things.

I find it surprising that so many people who witnessed that discussion and
should therefore be aware of his racist attitude continue to enter into
further technical discussions with him despite the absence of any apology
or retraction on his behalf. (But then I find many things surprising.)

Well, some people are more tolerant than others.

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:Iq******** *************** *******@bt.com. ..

Lorenzo Villari said:

>So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)

comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.

There is already c.l.c.moderated , which could serve the purpose of the
..iso-c suggestion.

I don't have a problem with c.l.c being wider-ranging, especially as it's
not very active at the minute.
--
Bartc

[Nick Keighley]

On 13 Nov, 03:46, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail].i nvalidwrote:

Martin Ambuhl said:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail. com wrote:

I find it surprising that so many people who witnessed that discussion and
should therefore be aware of [Tomás Ó hÉilidhe's] racist attitude continue
to enter into
further technical discussions with him despite the absence of any apology
or retraction on his behalf. (But then I find many things surprising.)

unfortunatly my killfile is stored in memory (my memory!) and is
hence unreliable

--
Nick Keighley

[Chris McDonald]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@T ROUSERSspamcop. netwrites:

>Chris McDonald wrote:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:

>>comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.i so-c, making that suggestion redundant.

(not trolling) but the suggestion is *not* redundant.

It comes with the suggestion that the name comp.lang.iso-c would provide a
clearer label for those ill-informed about the current use of comp.lang.c

>The groupname field was not designed to be an all encompassing
definition of its purpose.

>Take the groups ending in .tv - related to audiovisual entertainment, or
cross-dressing, or the state of Tuvalu, or what? There are alt. groups
that have highly cryptic names on purpose. Do you propose to go through
the entire hierarchy and enforce descriptive names? Won't work. For one
thing, the groupname is too short. For another, defining the group is
the charter or equivalent is for. For a third, if you lurk for a few
days the topicality will be clear. If you still can't figure out the
topicality, you can always ask.

>Some servers seem to support a description field, but I suspect few new
users bother to read those.

All true, but no-one proposed reviewing and changing all group names.
My comment was simply that the original suggestion was not redundant.

Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.

It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.

--
Chris.

[Eric Sosman]

Chris McDonald wrote:

[...]
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.

Since C is *defined* by various generations of ISO documents,
a better proposal would be comp.lang.c and comp.lang.pidgi n-c or
comp.lang.c-variants or comp.lang.c-ish.

It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.

The first-time posters are not the problem. The trouble is
with the repeat offenders, those who know better but choose worse.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[Keith Thompson]

Eric Sosman <Er*********@su n.comwrites:

Chris McDonald wrote:

>[...]
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.is o-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.

Since C is *defined* by various generations of ISO documents,
a better proposal would be comp.lang.c and comp.lang.pidgi n-c or
comp.lang.c-variants or comp.lang.c-ish.

>It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.

The first-time posters are not the problem. The trouble is
with the repeat offenders, those who know better but choose worse.

In fact, I have no real problem with first-timers posting off-topic
questions. This isn't a good place to get detailed information about,
say, Win32 or POSIX, but we do tend to be pretty good at advising
people where find the actual experts on what they're asking about.

The idea that redirecting a poster to a more appropriate newsgroup is
somehow rude is, of course, absurd. I'm sure there are examples of
people doing it in a rude manner, but in my experience they're the
exception.

--
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"

[Antoninus Twink]

On 13 Nov 2008 at 20:55, Chris McDonald wrote:

Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired
discussion of greatest interest to those same regulars.

True - but of course, their particular view on "desirable discussions"
carries no more weight than the next man's. This is not a moderated
group, and there is no charter - each person must decide for themselves
what to post. There is no absolute topicality, no matter how often and
how loudly and how aggressively Heathfield & friends say there is.

It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic
C would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.

Exactly. Very few people care about the minutiae of ISO C, whereas lots
and lots of people want to learn C. The "regs" would never support a
name change, because they know that c.l.iso-c would become a ghetto,
while clc would be an active forum for exchange of expertise.

They're perfectly happy with the status quo, where they can fuel their
egos by trying to bully newbies into accepting *their* definition of
"topicality ".

[pete]

Chris McDonald wrote:

Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.

K&R C is on topic here too.

--
pete