If I have:
struct one_{
unsigned int one_1;
unsigned short one_2;
unsigned short one_3;
};
struct two_{
unsigned int two_1;
unsigned short two_2;
unsigned char two_3;
};
struct mystruct{
struct one_ one;
struct two_ two;
}mystruct1;
Then could I by any change ask on the value of the whole struct mystruct1,
that is all the elements in the struct in one call? I want to do something
like (in pseudo like language):
if(mystruct1 == 0) { print("All elements of mystruct1 is zero");}
Best Regards
Terry
Nov 13 '05
258  8338 
I almost forgot, thanks for so graciously admitting you're a hypocrite by
replying.
Or do you want to retract your request for me not to top-post? You can
change your mind, I'll understand.
"Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn**********@sparta.btinternet.com... Roose wrote:
<snip>
> Prove that I did not post here. If you understood how Usenet works,
> you would not be able to say that my claim is false.
You, Roose, have posted to this newsgroup in exactly one thread - this one. My supporting evidence is the Google archive.
Are you claiming that Google has lost your articles?
Jesus Christ. I think this is like the 3rd time I've explained this.
Let's go back to the basics.
By all means.
There is the real world, and then there is the Internet. In the real
world,
there is a person that exists. On the Internet, that person can have AS
MANY USENET IDENTITIES AS HE WISHES. It's fascinating, I know.
In Usenet, it is effectively the case that you are what you post. As far
as the world can tell, your identity is "Roose" and the only articles you
have posted in this newsgroup have all been made within the last few days.
Therefore, the fact that "Roose" (NOT my real name, BTW) only appears in
certain threads, does not mean that I (a real person) have never posted
in other threads.
Nor does it mean the opposite. In the absence of evidence to the contrary
after a search of the archives for the existence of such evidence, I draw
the obvious conclusion that you, Roose, have never posted here before.
You're making this way too easy for me.
Well, I'm certainly trying to make it as easy for you as I can. You have
made a claim (i.e. that you have posted in this newsgroup as long ago as
1995) which you have failed to substantiate. I don't believe your claim.
If you care about your reputation, either substantiate your claim (for
example, giving a message ID from a 1995 article you posted to
comp.lang.c, together with some kind of evidence that the article in question was
indeed posted by you), or withdraw the claim.
It's that easy.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
"Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn**********@titan.btinternet.com... Roose wrote:
Alas, Roose has started dispensing C "advice".
Honestly. In all seriousness.
Do you think the OP (in the interview question thread) wants to hear
what I
told him, or what you guys told him?
I presume he wants to hear the right answer
Let me dispatch this one with cut and paste from my previous posts, short on
time now:
"The correct answer is what the interviewer wants to hear. Take a step
back from your insular little world of the C standard as a bible, and look
at the larger problem. Getting a job. In an interview, you would be the
guy that refuses to acknowledge this practical fact, unpure as it may be.
The guy who shows he knows how a stack works will be the one who gets a job.
A perfect example of why my "underemployed" flame was, again, witheringly
accurate."
"I find it hilarious that you live in such a regimented, literal-minded
world"
This also demonstrates my recently added stereotype:
"- inability to distinguish between the real world and the insular little
world of Usenet"
Which answer do you think would help the interviewee get the job? Which
answer demonstrates knowledge/ability to work on *real* projects?
1) No, there's no ANSI C standard way to do that <and say nothing else>
2) A non-portable way is... <what I said> The extreme focus on text of a certain width, no HTML, specific
rules about quoting and replying.... all control mechanisms.
Yes! Thanks for the text width, I forgot about that one. Let's all create
line breaks at 78 characters, yes? Well, let's get the "regulars" to agree
first, and then after that of course everyone must follow suit.
> But they're quite a scrabbly lot here, aren't they. They remind me of small town folk fighting to keep progress out of River City.
Thanks, that is what I've been trying to get at. I was amused, but now I
think it's sad. Basically my take on it is that there _was_ a newsgroup for
all people to discuss the C language, and it's been ruined. Gradually, a
mass of geeks with the same obsessive-compulsive tendencies gravitated
here -- driving out everyone else with their "comic book guy from the
Simpsons" act, constant harping about trivial things, obsessive focus on the
ANSI C standards, rather than the C language in the real world.
What boggles the mind is even after I pointed out all these things, they
continue to exhibit no self-awareness and demonstrate the same close-minded
tendencies, like in the interview question thread.
I've always thought it had to do with insecure egos. A common
phenomenon: if you can trash something, you *must* be better than
it. There is also the common phenomenon of "keyboard disconnect".
It's easy to be a jerk when you're not face to face. I'd bet good
money most of these people wouldn't **dare** to talk like that to
anyone's face. (If they talked to me like that, they'd be picking
up teeth!)
Yeah, it's pretty transparent.
All kidding aside, my sense is there is *vast* knowledge about the
C language to be had here. But you should largely ignore them in
any other subject.
That's my assessment too, and I have never doubted them on that. But
knowledge of the C language standard doesn't necessarily imply success at
building real systems.
Roose
Roose wrote:
"Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn**********@sparta.btinternet.com... In Usenet, it is effectively the case that you are what you post.
As far as the world can tell, your identity is "Roose" and the only
articles you have posted in this newsgroup have all been made within
the last few days.
<snip>
Let's repeat. "Roose" is not a real person.
I guessed as much. Therefore, any article purporting to be from "Roose" is a
forgery, and should under no circumstances be taken seriously. Certainly no
C advice should be accepted from a non-existent person.
I, Andy, am a real person.
Don't call me Andy. It's not my name. And we know it's not /your/ name,
because your name is Roose, and - by your own admission - you don't exist.
Roose has not posted here before, but I have.
You /are/ Roose, and Roose doesn't exist, remember?
It is not possible to prove that I posted here.
I can easily prove that I've posted here, however - I don't think I would
have the slightest difficulty persuading, say, a court of law of that fact
if it were ever to prove necessary for some bizarre reason.
Since you can't provide proof, I can only draw the obvious conclusion.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
In article <3F***************@Sonnack.com>,
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: There is also the common phenomenon of "keyboard disconnect".
It's easy to be a jerk when you're not face to face. I'd bet good
money most of these people wouldn't **dare** to talk like that to
anyone's face.
Funny you should mention that...
There's a coffee shop near where I live at which I often get together
with a few friends and acquaintances to drink coffee and talk about
flurzling with beebles. Since we're there quite a bit, a bunch of
students and random passers-by sometimes see us there and come over
and ask questions (often related to homework the students who study
beeble theory are doing), or just pull up a chair and listen (since
beeble theory, and flurzling in general, can lead to discussions that
are quite interesting once you understand the basics). It works quite
nicely; the coffee shop provides a convenient place where we can show up
or not show up, depending on whether we have the spare time, and with a
convenient combination of a public place and implicit boundaries that
lets us carry on a discussion independently of the people at the next
table but still doesn't make us seem too threatening to people who want
to join us. Even the management of the coffee shop likes us, because we
buy a lot of coffee, and sometimes people will even come in just to ask
us a question and buy coffee while they're there (even though nowadays
most people seem to prefer going to bars and spending their money on beer
while carrying on superficial conversations with drunk people instead
of talking to a few stuffy old intellectuals in a coffee shop).
There are a few other groups of people who accumulate in the same
coffee shop and discuss similar topics, like flurzling with bobbles,
or general flurzle theory, or even unrelated and mundane things like
playing guitar and programming computers. (One of the nice things
about living in a city with two universities is that you can discuss
pretty much anything in a coffee shop without people thinking you're
weird because you care about something like the political structure
of medieval yak herds, which apparently The Rest Of The World thinks
is pretty obscure.) There are even some people who discuss flurzling
with either beebles or bobbles (or even any of flurzling with beebles,
flurzling with bobbles, playing guitar, and the political structure of
medieval yak herds), depending on which discussion looks liveliest when
they come in. Sometimes students will hear us discussing flurzling with
beebles and ask us a question about flurzling with bobbles; since a lot
of the underlying math is pretty similar between beeble theory and bobble
theory, we can usually give them a reasonable answer to their questions,
but (especially if their question is about an area where the two theories
are different) we'll tell them that they'll get better answers from the
people who discuss flurzling with bobbles. Sometimes we even end up
comparing some of the finer points of the two theories, and often when
that happens a few people from one table will drop in and visit the other
table to compare notes. Those discussions are always the liveliest, and
(when they don't degenerate into arguments about which theory is more
useful and why or confusion over which theory we're talking about)
often shed light on some interesting ways of borrowing some ideas
(or even some parts of the theory) from one theory and using them to
simplify something in the other theory.
Last Sunday, somebody asked how to determine whether a sub-beeble was
isomorphic to a null space of a beeble field, and after some discussion
somebody pointed out that there was a way to generate a null space of
the correct order as a constant in the equations, and that once you
have that it's easy (almost, but not quite, trivial, even) to determine
whether the sub-beeble is isomorphic to that.
About five minutes after that result came up, somebody who had been
listening to us spoke up and said "Hi, I'm Ruth. Is the ability to use
a null space of an arbitrary order a recent development? I haven't
heard of it before." After a few minutes of collective "Huh?"-type
confusion, Rick (one of the people who's best at answering basic student
questions) realized that the question was referring to the discussion
of determining whether sub-beebles were isomorphic to null spaces, and
said that generating a null space of the right order had been possible
for a while, but being able to pull one out of the air when you needed
one was a recent development from a paper that Professor Stan Komtee had
published only a few years ago and that introduced several new concepts
that hadn't been widely adopted for flurzling yet. He (Rick) also
told Ruth that, since the discussion tends to jump around quite a bit
(and there's often more than one discussion going on at the same time),
it's a good idea for people who are returning to something that had been
discussed before to remind us of what we had said that was relevant to
their question or comment.
Ruth didn't seem to like that last bit much; she said that she liked
it better that way, and that it was annoying when people insisted in
refreshing everybody else's memory about what had been said five minutes
ago (or even two minutes, or even thirty seconds), and even more annoying
when people complained about her jumping into things without giving
enough cues to them about what she was talking about. When Rick (and a
few others) pointed out that, because of the number of different things
that got discussed in a typical two minutes of discussion, questions
without context were difficult to make sense of and that often the people
who gave the best answers just gave up trying to make sense of people
who did it often, she just said that if that was the case then people
should just ignore her, and that anybody with a short-term memory should
be able to remember what was said thirty seconds ago anyways.
For some reason, though, instead of acknowledging that following the
conventions that we had established to make it easier for everybody
would get better answers, Ruth just started yelling at us that if we
were going to ignore her, then, well, why weren't we ignoring her, and
why didn't we shut up and stop trying to make her aware of how best to
get good answers, since she obviously didn't want to know?
At this point, Rick asked her why, if she didn't want us to pay attention
to her anyways, she didn't just go away and stop yelling at us to ignore
her. At this point I doubt it would come as a surprise to you that she
neither did so nor provided a good reason why not. Instead she said that,
if everybody at the table (even the people who had been distracted from a
really interesting discussion about how to keep track of sub-beebles that
needed to be introduced into equations and making sure that they were all
accounted for) when she started shouting, could just remember what she had
been talking about before that, then they would OBVIOUSLY know that she
was only talking about being ignored by people who wanted her to provide
some context for comments she made, and that the people who wanted her
to provide context were obviously just narrow-minded control freaks who
wanted to make everybody conform to their idea of what was a good way to
make it easy to keep track of a technical discussion with a large group
in a public space, and that people who wanted to be able to keep track
of what was going on without spending half of their time reviewing what
they had been discussing before must be really fun to talk to at parties.
After a little bit more back-and-forth about why it was a Bad Thing to
ignore the conventions of groups she was dealing with, and especially
why it was a Very Bad Thing to be as rude as she was while doing so,
Ruth started pointing out that since we were in a public place, she could
do whatever she wanted to while she was talking to us, and that we were
being idiots for trying to be reasonable with somebody who obviously
wanted to make an idiot of herself by being rude to us.
At this point a few masochists began pointing out that despite the
fact that we were in a public place with no formal rules of conduct,
it was still expected that people would show decency and respect while
dealing with others, and that deliberately failing to observe the norms
and protocols of a group of people you had just joined was not exactly
what most people would consider showing decency and respect.
Ruth's response to this, I'm sure, will come as a surprise to nobody:
she kept yelling at us about how it was so cool to be able to get people
annoyed with her just by being rude to them, and that the people who were
trying to get her to either stop being rude to us or to just go away were
obviously making the problem worse by trying to get her to be reasonable.
More interesting was the fact that it was about then that somebody came
by and started telling the combatants that they really should be nice to
the poor innocent newcomer, and that really, if people were as rude to
him as they were being to Ruth, they'd be picking up their teeth by now.
This was when I started wishing that we were having this discussion
someplace sane, like usenet, so I could just killfile the thread or go
find something else to waste time on for a while when I got tired of it...
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
[i]t is to be understood that accusing a perfect stranger of being a smartass,
primadonna or of lacking social graces is an example of impeccable manners.
--Kaz Kylheku roasts a troll in comp.lang.c
Roose wrote: "Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn**********@titan.btinternet.com... Roose wrote:
>> Alas, Roose has started dispensing C "advice".
>
> Honestly. In all seriousness.
>
> Do you think the OP (in the interview question thread) wants
> to hear what I told him, or what you guys told him?
I presume he wants to hear the right answer
Let me dispatch this one with cut and paste from my previous posts,
short on time now:
"The correct answer is what the interviewer wants to hear.
Right, and that's why the correct answer is the answer you should give. The
incorrect answer will displease the interviewer. For example, waffling on
about stacks.
ake a step
back from your insular little world of the C standard as a bible,
Well, it's actually a PDF document. In this newsgroup, standard C is what we
discuss. My interests, knowledge and experience encompass more than this
newsgroup but, whilst I am participating in this newsgroup, I discuss
standard C. That is because I respect the conventions of this
well-established newsgroup. Your unwillingness to do this says a lot more
about your insularity than it does about mine.
and look
at the larger problem. Getting a job. In an interview, you would be the
guy that refuses to acknowledge this practical fact, unpure as it may be.
On the contrary, I would be the guy who said: "the correct answer is that
this can't be done in a well-defined way, but there are some very
non-portable hacks that take advantage of the way some compilers lay out
memory - did you want to hear about those?"
If, at that point, the interviewer says "yes", then I can proceed to tell
him about the non-portable hacks (which are off-topic in comp.lang.c), and
if he says "no" I saved us both some time and may well have landed the job
in the process.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
In article <3F***************@Sonnack.com>,
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: Dave Vandervies wrote:
There is also the common phenomenon of "keyboard disconnect".
It's easy to be a jerk when you're not face to face. I'd bet good
money most of these people wouldn't **dare** to talk like that to
anyone's face. (If they talked to me like that, they'd be picking
up teeth!)
If somebody were to tell me face to face that I was an idiot for
preferring that they follow established social norms when dealing
with me,...
Something I would grant you the ability to do *only* within the
context of *your* home or *your* office. On public ground you
have *zero* right (repeat: Z*E*R*O) to expect or demand anything.
You can certainly *request*, and if you do so nicely, and if all
other things are equal, I may well grant your request. If your
ego is so overwhelming that you refuse to deal with me, except by
your guidelines, then you probably are someone I could get through
life without dealing with ever.
[If you haven't read the post I just made a little bit upthread, go read
it now and come back to this one.]
You're really prepared to claim that Ruth's conduct was acceptable,
and that the other people sitting at the table were wrong to object to it?
If you are, I'm glad I don't live in your world.
If you aren't, I'm curious about who would be picking up whose teeth and
at what point. I suspect that the answer doesn't support the position
you appear to be taking here.
(And yes, in the small subset of the real world that I prefer to
inhabit, telling people (usually without being all that diplomatic
about it) when they're wrong or when they should go away and bother
somebody else instead is expected according to the established
social norms.)
I would consider your social norms defective or naive. (Not an
uncommon thing for hardcore computer workers and engineers.) I
forget who said it, but "Politeness is the grease on which society
runs" is, I think, a Truth.
(If those are indeed your social norms, I can see why you prefer
to inhabit a small subset of the real world.)
No, those are not "my" social norms; they are the social norms of the
subset of the world that I prefer to inhabit.
In the larger subset of the world that I do in fact inhabit, there are
several subsubsets, a few of which are also subsubsets of the subset
that I prefer to inhabit. Social norms are defined by the social group
whose norms they are, not by an individual member of that social group.
When I'm with nontechnical people, I don't follow the same norms as when
I'm with technical people.
I've discovered that engineers and computer programmers are,
perhaps understandably, *extremely* controlling people. This is
good in their work, but can be a problem in social interaction.
They are also often prone to truly believe a problem has only
ONE completely valid solution (another aspect of control).
The extreme focus on text of a certain width, no HTML, specific
rules about quoting and replying.... all control mechanisms.
SOME of us prefer a wilder, less controlled, version of reality.
Some of us also don't much care to *be* controlled.
Some of us realize that it's better to conform in areas that make it
easier to understand each other, and to leave the nonconformism to areas
where it improves things instead of just making everybody work harder.
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
I would expand on these points here, only I don't really have the time
right now to copy out five pages of text.
--Richard Heathfield in comp.lang.c
> > Let's repeat. "Roose" is not a real person.
I guessed as much. Therefore, any article purporting to be from "Roose" is
a forgery, and should under no circumstances be taken seriously. Certainly
no C advice should be accepted from a non-existent person.
I, Andy, am a real person.
Don't call me Andy. It's not my name. And we know it's not /your/ name,
because your name is Roose, and - by your own admission - you don't exist.
Roose has not posted here before, but I have.
You /are/ Roose, and Roose doesn't exist, remember?
Now you're just embarassing yourself.
Wow. I drove Richard utterly insane. It doesn't take much, I guess.
... "brittle personality" ...
Hm, I keep hearing echoes of my old posts.
Keep going Richard. You've almost bored me to death with this desperate
struggle. I'll stop when I'm completely bored.
Weird, since at first I thought you were _definitely_ smarter than Mr. Hu or
Mr. McIntyre. I'm usually a pretty good judge of character at first.
> [If you haven't read the post I just made a little bit upthread, go read it now and come back to this one.]
You're really prepared to claim that Ruth's conduct was acceptable,
and that the other people sitting at the table were wrong to object to it?
That's really creative... proof by flawed analogy to fictional story. I
like it. : )
"Roose" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:RM*****************@newssvr14.news.prodigy.co m... Do you have any evidence to back up your belief that you have
irrefutable knowledge of what I do and do not consider to be incendiary?
Well, at least you *said* so if you don't believe so, or maybe that was
one of the others in the indistinguishable mass of anal-retentive geeks.
Can't really tell.
If you don't think any of my past message was incendiary, then that last
line certainly was. So if you reply to this, then you're replying to
incendiary material.
"Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn**********@sparta.btinternet.com... Roose wrote:
<snip>
Prove that I did not post here. If you understood how Usenet works,
> you would not be able to say that my claim is false.
You, Roose, have posted to this newsgroup in exactly one thread - this
one. My supporting evidence is the Google archive.
Are you claiming that Google has lost your articles?
Jesus Christ. I think this is like the 3rd time I've explained this.
Let's go back to the basics.
By all means.
I almost forgot, thanks for so graciously admitting you're a hypocrite by
replying.
Or do you want to retract your request for me not to top-post? You can
change your mind, I'll understand.
That's a cool story, reminds me of another story.
Once upon a time there was a group of schoolchildren in Ignorance, Montana.
They only had right-handed scissors at this school. One day a left-handed
boy was cutting out some pictures, and stabbed himself in the face with the
scissors accidently. Everyone started shouting and screaming at him, and he
died of shock, unfortunately.
Henceforth, they made two rules:
1. Only cut with your right hand.
2. Don't shout, ever.
Fast forward 15 years. Over time they forgot where these rules came from,
but they followed them anyway since they were posted on the blackboard.
They even had left-handed scissors now, but they didn't let anyone use them.
Even when they were playing Shout At The Geek, they whispered instead.
One day a boy named Roose came back from another school. Roose was
left-handed. He saw that they had left-handed scissors now, and so one day
he started cutting out some pictures with them.
All of the sudden, everyone else starting SHOUTING, "STOP CUTTING WITH YOUR
LEFT HAND." He said that he didn't mind if they were right-handed, but he
preferred cut with his left hand. Still they SHOUTED, "RIGHT-HANDED CUTTING
IS HOW WE DO THINGS 'ROUND HERE. SO STOP IT."
Roose asked how come they were shouting if one of their rules was not to
shout. They SHOUTED, "I'M NOT SHOUTING!!!!! SHOUTING IS FOR
LEFT-HANDERS!!!!! YOU'RE A SHOUTER!!!!! STOP SHOUTING, SHOUTER!!!!! STOP
CUTTING, SHOUTER!!!!! YOU'RE A LEFTY SHOUTER, CUTTER!!!!! CUT LIKE A
SHOUTER, LEFTY!!!!!"
The End.
"Dave Vandervies" <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:bn**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca... In article <3F***************@Sonnack.com>,
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote:
There is also the common phenomenon of "keyboard disconnect".
It's easy to be a jerk when you're not face to face. I'd bet good
money most of these people wouldn't **dare** to talk like that to
anyone's face.
Funny you should mention that...
There's a coffee shop near where I live at which I often get together
with a few friends and acquaintances to drink coffee and talk about
flurzling with beebles. Since we're there quite a bit, a bunch of
students and random passers-by sometimes see us there and come over
and ask questions (often related to homework the students who study
beeble theory are doing), or just pull up a chair and listen (since
beeble theory, and flurzling in general, can lead to discussions that
are quite interesting once you understand the basics). It works quite
nicely; the coffee shop provides a convenient place where we can show up
or not show up, depending on whether we have the spare time, and with a
convenient combination of a public place and implicit boundaries that
lets us carry on a discussion independently of the people at the next
table but still doesn't make us seem too threatening to people who want
to join us. Even the management of the coffee shop likes us, because we
buy a lot of coffee, and sometimes people will even come in just to ask
us a question and buy coffee while they're there (even though nowadays
most people seem to prefer going to bars and spending their money on beer
while carrying on superficial conversations with drunk people instead
of talking to a few stuffy old intellectuals in a coffee shop).
Roose wrote: I almost forgot, thanks for so graciously admitting you're a hypocrite by
replying.
I did indeed reply. I have not, however, made any such admission. I don't,
of course, deny that I, in common with the rest of the human race, can be
hypocritical from time to time, but my participation in Usenet discussions
does not constitute hypocrisy, a priori.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: In article <1g********************************@BUSThotmailE.R com>,
<te*********@BUSThotmailE.Rcom> wrote:There is only a single social norm that I care about or believe to be
important.
Is what the person doing causing direct harm to my property (a person
fundamentally owns themselves), without my consent?
If the answer is no, they, quite simply, can do whatever they feel like
doing.
Then why don't you tell us where you live, and a few CLC regulars who are
following this thread and live in the area can go follow you around for
a day telling you that if you don't like the fact that they're bothering
you you can just ignore them.
Well, if you would truly like to debate the issue, I would recommend
starting with the writings of John Locke. Understanding the Philosophy
of T. Jefferson would likely help as well.
I have set the followup to a more appropriate newsgroup.
--
Roose <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote: Then why don't you tell us where you live, and a few CLC regulars who are
following this thread and live in the area can go follow you around for
a day telling you that if you don't like the fact that they're bothering
you you can just ignore them.
The difference being that in the real world, there is no mechanism for
ignoring someone if they follow you around in your face.
Actually, there is.
One only needs to remove oneself from the current situation where their
behavior is possible and go to one where it would not be.
Of course, should it continue, it could turn into harassment or, more
seriously, stalking, in which case, harm would exist (of the
psychological nature) and one would have the right to either defend
oneself from such harm with all appropriate force or go to the proper
authorities and have them prosecuted.
--
In article <HD***************@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
Roose <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote: [If you haven't read the post I just made a little bit upthread, go read
it now and come back to this one.]
You're really prepared to claim that Ruth's conduct was acceptable,
and that the other people sitting at the table were wrong to object to it?
That's really creative... proof by flawed analogy to fictional story. I
like it. : )
Having seen your reply to it and this claim, I have nothing further to
say on the subject.
The time has come, the poster said,
To talk of many items.
Of techie groups, and coffee shops,
Of protocol ad infinitum.
Of why the troll is finally plonked,
And why I can't rhyme the last line.
(F'rif that wasn't clear: *Plonk.*)
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
If you need any more stupid mistakes, I'm sure I've got some round here
somewhere.
--Chris Dollin in comp.lang.c
> (F'rif that wasn't clear: *Plonk.*)
Wow. How long did that take.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:14:53 +0000, Mark McIntyre wrote:
[snips] You said you killfiled me already,
No, I killfile you when you start telling people wrong C answers.
Isn't that about the worst possible time to killfile someone? :)
Mark McIntyre wrote: Oop, darn forgot to post this in HTML....
<pedantry>
you misspelled oops
</pedantry>
Nah, 'twasn't big 'nuf for the "s". :-|
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Roose wrote: Basically my take on it is that there _was_ a newsgroup for
all people to discuss the C language, and it's been ruined.
Oh, I would disagree. For "C-only" questions, this group is
unparalleled. You just have to understand the focus.
What boggles the mind is even after I pointed out all these
things, they continue to exhibit no self-awareness and
demonstrate the same close-minded tendencies, like in the
interview question thread.
Do you really believe you can illuminate, educate or enlighten
people on amUSENET? Wanna buy a bridge? (-:
But knowledge of the C language standard doesn't necessarily
imply success at building real systems.
No, but you will find professional working programmers here a
plenty with many successful real systems to their credit. If
you're interested in C, don't let the social behavior poison
the well. Even though the water sometimes has a rank smell,
it's actually pretty good water.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Keith Thompson wrote: The extreme focus on text of a certain width, no HTML, specific
rules about quoting and replying.... all control mechanisms.
These are all serious attempts to keep this newsgroup useful.
Sure, but they often go beyond that (IMO, obviously) and into the
territory of "Do It My (Our) Way Or Suffer My (Our) Wrath."
I seldom say anything so important that it's going to be worth my
readers' time to wade through clever formatting or insufficient
context to figure out what I'm talking about.
There is a difference between "clever formatting" and people just
trying to communicate as best as they can with the tools they have.
The reality is, outside something that *requires* monospace font
for alignment purposes (such as our source code), formatted text
is *easier* to read. MUCH easier. And HTML is quickly becoming
a de facto standard for representing formatted text. Like it or
not, HTML newsgroups are probably going to be standard before long.
Which I think will--once we get used to it--improve communication
considerably. In company, we have Lotus Notes mail which uses a
(rather sadly drain bamaged) Rich Text Format that allows formatted
mail. I can write much more communicative and illustrative emails
using basic formatting tools.
There is, after all, a very good reason why books and magazines do
not use 80-column, monospace (except for special effect).
Even if I did have something monumental to say, I'd still want to
make it as easy as possible for it to be read.
Which would be via formatted text.
Too many newsgroups have descended into useless chaos. We don't
want to let that happen to comp.lang.c.
I think y'all use that rationale overmuch. Tech groups that lack
the sharp focus on topicality still seem pretty useful to me. For
example, comp.lang.lisp has about the same traffic, but lacks the
style.cops and topic.cops. Far as I can tell, the groups are about
the same--very, VERY useful in their language domain.
We're here to talk about C. Anyone who's more interested in
showing off how unconventional they are, or how creatively they
can format their text, should probably consider finding someplace
else to do it.
I'd agree. How about someone with genuine interest in C who just
happens to believe in HTML and top posting and--outside that--makes
very intelligent, readable posts?
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Dave Vandervies wrote: [If you haven't read the post I just made a little bit upthread,
go read it now and come back to this one.]
Without a date or reference, I have no idea WHICH post you mean.
You're really prepared to claim that Ruth's conduct was acceptable,
and that the other people sitting at the table were wrong to object
to it?
I think there's plenty of wrong to spread around on both sides.
Plenty of right, too.
I'm glad I don't live in your world.
How do you know? Do you really know my world?
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude wrote: There is a difference between "clever formatting" and people just
trying to communicate as best as they can with the tools they have.
Good point. I am going to start using Abiword to post my articles,
those that use a newsreader that doesn't know how to deal with the
formatting markup will just have to wade through it. I figure those
lame enough to use a text only newsreader in a text based protocol
deserve what they get.
--
Noah Roberts
- "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE abiword PUBLIC "-//ABISOURCE//DTD AWML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.abisource.com/awml.dtd">
<abiword xmlns="http://www.abisource.com/awml.dtd"
xmlns:awml="http://www.abisource.com/awml.dtd"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format"
xmlns:math="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="1.0.1"
fileformat="1.0" styles="unlocked">
<!--
================================================== =================== -->
<!-- This file is an AbiWord document.
-->
<!-- AbiWord is a free, Open Source word processor.
-->
<!-- You may obtain more information about AbiWord at www.abisource.com
-->
<!-- You should not edit this file by hand.
-->
<!--
================================================== =================== -->
<styles>
<s type="P" name="Normal" basedon="" followedby="Current Settings"
props="font-family:Times New Roman; margin-top:0pt; font-variant:normal;
margin-left:0pt; text-indent:0in; widows:2; font-style:normal;
font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none; color:000000; line-height:1.0;
text-align:left; margin-bottom:0pt; text-position:normal;
margin-right:0pt; bgcolor:transparent; font-size:12pt;
font-stretch:normal"/>
</styles>
<pagesize pagetype="Letter" orientation="portrait" width="8.500000"
height="11.000000" units="in" page-scale="1.000000"/>
<section>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">I am just posting this so you
can see how truly awful it would be.</c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US"></c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">When you post HTML to newsgroups
this is often what it looks like on the other side.</c></p>
</section>
</abiword>
BTW, in case you can't find the actual text of the message (oh gee, why
not?) this is what it says:
I am just posting this so you can see how truly awful it would be.
When you post HTML to newsgroups this is often what it looks like on the
other side.
--
Noah Roberts
- "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."
Dave Vandervies wrote: [....ssssssssssNIP!]
About five minutes after that result came up, somebody who had been
listening to us spoke up and said "Hi, I'm Ruth. Is the ability to
use a null space of an arbitrary order a recent development? I
haven't heard of it before."
Nice polite question.
After a few minutes of collective "Huh?"-type confusion, Rick [...]
realized that the question was referring to the discussion of [five
minutes ago], and [answered].
A nice polite answer. Had it stopped there, no shouting.
He (Rick) also told Ruth that, since the discussion tends to jump
around quite a bit (and there's often more than one discussion
going on at the same time), it's a good idea for people who are
returning to something that had been discussed before to remind us
of what we had said that was relevant to their question or comment.
Ruth didn't seem to like that last bit much....
A *great* deal would depend on Rick's presentation, since he was
now in the position of commenting on someone's public behavior.
And he would have the advantage of facial and tonal cues, but you
still have to tread carefully when attempting to exert your will
on someone else.
Try Ruth's shoes for a moment. Upon approaching a new group, she
is immediately told she's doing wrong. In front of an audience.
At the very *least* I would suggest not doing that in front of an
audience. Even Westerners have a sense of saving face.
MAYBE it would have served everyone's purpose better if Rick just
let Ruth have her answer and allowed her to--if she stayed around--
learn the group dynamics in her own time.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Noah Roberts wrote: <p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">I am just posting this so
you can see how truly awful it would be.</c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US"></c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">When you post HTML to
newsgroups this is often what it looks like on the other
side.</c></p>
Fascinating. No problem reading, BTW. If I wanted to view it in
fully formatted, I could dump it into a wide variety of things that
can display HTML.
No problem.
When you post HTML to newsgroups this is often what it looks like
on the other side.
So get out of the dark ages and get something that can render HTML.
I suspect it's going to be like HD tv. Eventually, the choice will
not be yours.
<borg>You <strong>WILL</strong> be assimilated</borg>
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude wrote:
.... snip ...
The reality is, outside something that *requires* monospace font
for alignment purposes (such as our source code), formatted text
is *easier* to read. MUCH easier. And HTML is quickly becoming
a de facto standard for representing formatted text. Like it or
not, HTML newsgroups are probably going to be standard before long.
That would simply open the door to script kiddies and other evil
types, and spell the death of using newsgroups at all. With pure
text you KNOW you cannot be attacked.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: Keith Thompson wrote: The extreme focus on text of a certain width, no HTML, specific
rules about quoting and replying.... all control mechanisms.
These are all serious attempts to keep this newsgroup useful.
Sure, but they often go beyond that (IMO, obviously) and into the
territory of "Do It My (Our) Way Or Suffer My (Our) Wrath."
I seldom say anything so important that it's going to be worth my
readers' time to wade through clever formatting or insufficient
context to figure out what I'm talking about.
There is a difference between "clever formatting" and people just
trying to communicate as best as they can with the tools they have.
The reality is, outside something that *requires* monospace font
for alignment purposes (such as our source code), formatted text
is *easier* to read. MUCH easier. And HTML is quickly becoming
a de facto standard for representing formatted text. Like it or
not, HTML newsgroups are probably going to be standard before long.
HTML has not become a de facto standard on Usenet.
The newsreader I use does not render HTML. (Actually, there might be
a way to tell it to do so, but I haven't looked into it; in any case,
many other newsreaders in common use cannot render HTML at all.) I
run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width font.
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this newsgroup
are in the same position.
I suppose there's a standard for HTML Usenet postings (there seems to
be one for e-mail, and the message formats are very close), but I
rarely see any. If I did, I probably wouldn't bother to decode them.
[...] Even if I did have something monumental to say, I'd still want to
make it as easy as possible for it to be read.
Which would be via formatted text.
Not for most Usenet readers, and certainly not for most readers of
comp.lang.c.
[...] We're here to talk about C. Anyone who's more interested in
showing off how unconventional they are, or how creatively they
can format their text, should probably consider finding someplace
else to do it.
I'd agree. How about someone with genuine interest in C who just
happens to believe in HTML and top posting and--outside that--makes
very intelligent, readable posts?
I don't believe I've seen any examples of that.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks*@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
Programmer Dude wrote: Noah Roberts wrote:
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">I am just posting this so
you can see how truly awful it would be.</c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US"></c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">When you post HTML to
newsgroups this is often what it looks like on the other
side.</c></p>
Fascinating. No problem reading, BTW. If I wanted to view it in
fully formatted, I could dump it into a wide variety of things that
can display HTML.
No problem.
When you post HTML to newsgroups this is often what it looks like
on the other side.
So get out of the dark ages and get something that can render HTML.
I suspect it's going to be like HD tv. Eventually, the choice will
not be yours.
<borg>You <strong>WILL</strong> be assimilated</borg>
*plonk*
--
Noah Roberts
- "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."
Keith Thompson wrote: HTML has not become a de facto standard on Usenet.
The newsreader I use does not render HTML. (Actually, there might be
a way to tell it to do so, but I haven't looked into it; in any case,
many other newsreaders in common use cannot render HTML at all.) I
run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width font.
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this newsgroup
are in the same position.
Mine will display HTML but I have told it explicitly not to. I used to
be in XFree86's support team and we would get html messages a lot. When
I was using a reader that was able to read these messages often times
the font was not on my system and would be replaced by something
rediculously small. Toss, into trash, learn to use text dork!
I stopped using that email reader. Most of the HTML messages became
readable after that because most clients adhere to MIME standard and
send in text and HTML. Those that did not would show up looking very
similar to my Abiword post and again - toss, into trash, learn to use
text dork!
There is 0 reason to use HTML, or any markup language, when
communicating through email or usenet. I think most people here
probably view their messages in fixed width font so that little argument
is pointless. If you insist on forcing your font and formatting choices
on me I will simply killfile you. Life is too precious to waste it on
such stupidity.
--
Noah Roberts
- "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<bn**********@sparta.btinternet.com>...
<snipped> I'm not telling you to do anything. I simply suggest that if
you're so keen on following netiquette, then killfile me already.
But what if you were to start dispensing language advice? If you were in
every regular contributor's killfile, who would correct your errors?
us unfortunate readers who have to use google to read news.
then *you* can read *my* message and correct *my* errors made
while correcting *his* errors :-)
goose,
still no proper ISP, sadly ...
"Roose" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:<xC***************@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com >...
<snipped> Weird, since at first I thought you were _definitely_ smarter than Mr. Hu or
Mr. McIntyre. I'm usually a pretty good judge of character at first.
stop being everyones whipping post sonnyboy ... find something else
to get off on and get on with it.
goose,
next post will be in swahili, right ?
Programmer Dude wrote: Try Ruth's shoes for a moment. Upon approaching a new group, she
is immediately told she's doing wrong. In front of an audience.
At the very *least* I would suggest not doing that in front of an
audience. Even Westerners have a sense of saving face.
That's too bad. Corrective posts are the best, because they not only
inform the offender but others.
Besides, most of us don't have to imagine it. We all generally screwed
up at some time on some newsgroup. My first post here was off-topic
(asked about editors).
Brian Rodenborn
CBFalconer wrote: The reality is, outside something that *requires* monospace font
for alignment purposes (such as our source code), formatted text
is *easier* to read. MUCH easier. And HTML is quickly becoming
a de facto standard for representing formatted text. Like it or
not, HTML newsgroups are probably going to be standard before long.
That would simply open the door to script kiddies and other evil
types, and spell the death of using newsgroups at all.
Nonsense. Nothing in HTML itself can harm you. It's trivially
easy to disable <object> and <script> (and even <img>) tags.
With pure text you KNOW you cannot be attacked.
An HTML document *IS* pure text.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Default User wrote: Try Ruth's shoes for a moment. Upon approaching a new group, she
is immediately told she's doing wrong. In front of an audience.
At the very *least* I would suggest not doing that in front of an
audience. Even Westerners have a sense of saving face.
That's too bad. Corrective posts are the best, because they not
only inform the offender but others.
Certainly. And in a newsgroup or mailing list, the loss of face
isn't significant. (I was addressing Vandervies' story about Ruth.)
Still, as I said to Dave, "A *great* deal would depend on Rick's
presentation, since he was now in the position of commenting on
someone's public behavior."
THAT applies here as well. There's corrective posts, and there's
flammage. A gentle corrective post to a newbie is a fine thing.
What bothers me *most* is the lack of tolerance shown for those
with other ideas. If a poster is *clearly* a troll or agitator,
fine, have at'm. The problem is the tendancy to lump those with
different opinions into the Troll Box.
"He doesn't agree with me/us, so he must be a Troll."
No small town is more insular or more intolerant than this group.
In fact, "Small Town" is an excellent metaphor for this (and many
other) newsgroup(s) on many counts.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Keith Thompson wrote: And HTML is quickly becoming a de facto standard for representing
formatted text. Like it or not, HTML newsgroups are probably
going to be standard before long.
HTML has not become a de facto standard on Usenet.
Did I say it had? Consider the words quoted above. Particularly
the "before long" and "probably" words. Consider also the difference
between "for representing text" and "on Usenet".
The newsreader I use does not render HTML.
There are plenty that do. Some are even free.
I run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width
font.
How quaint. Thinking of joining the new millenium anytime soon?
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this
newsgroup are in the same position.
Of using inefficient, ancient tools? That's too bad!! Even if I did have something monumental to say, I'd still want to
make it as easy as possible for it to be read.
Which would be via formatted text.
Not for most Usenet readers, and certainly not for most readers of
comp.lang.c.
Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to ancient
systems whose day is long, long past. I'd agree. How about someone with genuine interest in C who just
happens to believe in HTML and top posting and--outside that--makes
very intelligent, readable posts?
I don't believe I've seen any examples of that.
Maybe if you opened your mind a little more you might be surprised.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude wrote: Keith Thompson wrote:
The newsreader I use does not render HTML.
There are plenty that do. Some are even free.
But the one he has chosen to use does not. That's /his/ choice.
I run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width
font.
How quaint. Thinking of joining the new millenium anytime soon?
Thinking of conceding other people's right to use the software /they/ want
to use anytime soon?
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this
newsgroup are in the same position.
Of using inefficient, ancient tools? That's too bad!!
I find nothing terribly inefficient about a fixed-pitch display. In fact, I
find it very easy to read, especially for source code. On this newsgroup,
we see a /lot/ of source code, some of it so badly formatted that it looks
pretty horrible even in fixed-pitch. I'd hate to think what it would look
like in a proportional font.
As for ancientiosity, I see no reason why a tool should be abandoned just
because it's getting on a bit. Do you still use wheels? Fire? Or are they
too old-fashioned now?
<snip>
Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
Where did Keith Thompson mention such a desire? Quote the message ID,
please.
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
It is. See above.
What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to ancient
systems whose day is long, long past.
Who is to judge whether a system's day is long, long past? You? Bill Gates?
Each of us is perfectly capable of deciding which software he or she wants
to use. I'd agree. How about someone with genuine interest in C who just
happens to believe in HTML and top posting and--outside that--makes
very intelligent, readable posts?
I don't believe I've seen any examples of that.
Maybe if you opened your mind a little more you might be surprised.
Our minds should indeed be open - but not gaping. I don't think Keith
Thompson is a particularly credulous person.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: Keith Thompson wrote:
And HTML is quickly becoming a de facto standard for representing
formatted text. Like it or not, HTML newsgroups are probably
going to be standard before long.
HTML has not become a de facto standard on Usenet.
Did I say it had? Consider the words quoted above. Particularly
the "before long" and "probably" words. Consider also the difference
between "for representing text" and "on Usenet".
It is my sincere hope that HTML newsgroups do not become standard any
time soon. I prefer plain text, as do many other people. If you want
the web, you know where to find it.
The newsreader I use does not render HTML.
There are plenty that do. Some are even free.
That's nice. I don't *want* my newsreader to render HTML. (Actually,
I think it does; I'm glad to say that it rarely has to.)
I run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width
font.
How quaint. Thinking of joining the new millenium anytime soon?
No, I like the third one just fine.
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this
newsgroup are in the same position.
Of using inefficient, ancient tools? That's too bad!!
Even if I did have something monumental to say, I'd still want to
make it as easy as possible for it to be read.
Which would be via formatted text.
Not for most Usenet readers, and certainly not for most readers of
comp.lang.c.
Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
I have no problem reading fixed-width text. For much of what I read,
including C source code, formatted text would be more difficult to
read. A variable-width font might be easier to read for running
English text like this, but the drawbacks would greatly outweigh the
benefits.
What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to ancient
systems whose day is long, long past.
So if we all do things the way you want us to, we'll all be just fine,
right?
The tools you advocate are newer, flashier, and more complex. That
doesn't make them better for this specific purpose.
I'd agree. How about someone with genuine interest in C who just
happens to believe in HTML and top posting and--outside that--makes
very intelligent, readable posts?
I don't believe I've seen any examples of that.
Maybe if you opened your mind a little more you might be surprised.
Perhaps you can provide some concrete examples? I don't think I've
ever seen an HTML posting in comp.lang.c, other than one or two
examples during this discussion. As for top-posting, those who do it
here repeatedly tend to be trolling rather than actually discussing C.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Nice sig block, but it doesn't look very good in a variable-width
font, does it?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks*@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
Richard Heathfield wrote: The newsreader I use does not render HTML.
There are plenty that do. Some are even free.
But the one he has chosen to use does not. That's /his/ choice.
Of course. But if the world moves on to bigger and better things,
then that choice may leave one behind.
The thing... The thing is, don't expect the rest of us to hang back
with you just because you *choose* to stay behind. We may choose
to move forward.
I run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width
font.
How quaint. Thinking of joining the new millenium anytime soon?
Thinking of conceding other people's right to use the software
/they/ want to use anytime soon?
You know me well enough to know I'm *absolutely* in favor of choice.
If you want to live off the land in animal skins and cook on an
open fire, hey, more power to ya. Just don't expect that that
*defines* reality in any way.
Of using inefficient, ancient tools? That's too bad!!
I find nothing terribly inefficient about a fixed-pitch display.
Ever wonder why books and magazines don't use monospace fonts for
normal text? Because it's harder to read. Well-established fact.
In fact, I find it very easy to read, especially for source code.
Regardless of what you find, the fact is that monospace fonts are
best for things--as I have said, such as source--which NEED to be
correctly spaced.
Note, too, the issue isn't "easy to read", it's "EASIER to read".
On this newsgroup, we see a /lot/ of source code, [...] I'd hate
to think what it would look like in a proportional font.
No problem. HTML easily supports a change to monospace. It's even
implicit in the <pre> (and others) tag.
As for ancientiosity, I see no reason why a tool should be
abandoned just because it's getting on a bit.
If "just because it's getting on a bit" were the issue, I'd agree.
Since it isn't, I don't.
Do you still use wheels?
Not when better alternatives are available (don't YOU have an
antigrav sled? :-). If I COULD fly rather than wheel, believe
me, I would!
Fire?
Only as campfires or to light cigars. I use microwaves to do a lot
of my "cooking". Modern, clean electricity does the rest.
Or are they too old-fashioned now?
Old fashioned *and* unwieldy. Just like 80-column text. Fine when
it was the only (or best) game on the block. But That Day Is Over.
Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
Where did Keith Thompson mention such a desire?
[sigh] This is you being deliberately obtuse again, and I'm SO not
interesting in sinking down to that level. I presume any intelligent
adult--including you--knows **exactly** what I meant.
If you want to debate this on *ideas* and *issues* I'm delighted.
If you want to play stupid, childish word games, I'm not playing.
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
It is. See above.
You are, to be blunt, wrong. The evidence is visible in EVERY SINGLE
BOOK on your bookshelves. Ask **ANY** publisher of printed material
(because I know you won't take my word for it).
What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to ancient
systems whose day is long, long past.
Who is to judge whether a system's day is long, long past? You? Bill
Gates?
Me. My opinion, my decision. Your opinions will reflect yours.
But let's consider the question: Has plain text's day passed?
Outside of source code, I'd say yes it has (or *should* in places
where it yet lingers). Why resort to *emphasis* when I could just
use <b>. Or <strong>. Or <u>. Or <i>. Or a font change. Or a
color change. Or any combination.
HTML offers a wonderful, potentially universal, way to add dimension
to text. The EXACT SAME dimension that we've enjoyed for decades in
our books, magazines and newspapers. Why NOT enjoy the power of the
additional information-carrying capacity of formatted text?
Each of us is perfectly capable of deciding which software he or
she wants to use.
Gee, ya think?
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Keith Thompson wrote: The newsreader I use does not render HTML.
There are plenty that do. Some are even free.
That's nice. I don't *want* my newsreader to render HTML.
Okay. Your choice.
...the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
I have no problem reading fixed-width text.
Once again, PLEASE READ THE WORDS. (In fact, one has to wonder if
formatted text wouldn't have helped make the point! :-)
Formatted, proportionally-spaced fonts are *E*A*S*I*E*R to read.
Repeat: eas***>>>IER<<<***
Not "easy". EASIER.
For much of what I read, including C source code, formatted text
would be more difficult to read.
What, besides source code, would be easier to read in monospace?
Can you name any real book set in monospace? Do you wonder why not?
How about K&R? If monospace is so great, why didn't they use it in
their book? After all, it's *about* C source. If ANY book deserved
to be set in mono, seems K&R would be a good choice.
Yet, it wasn't.
A variable-width font might be easier to read for running
English text like this,...
There really is no "might be" about it.
...but the drawbacks would greatly outweigh the benefits.
What drawbacks? Seriously. Given the ability to drop into mono
anytime you want/need to, what drawbacks are there that would
outweigh the obvious benefits (benefits enjoyed by just about
every single technical manual, book or magazine you've ever read).
What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to
ancient systems whose day is long, long past.
So if we all do things the way you want us to, we'll all be just
fine, right?
Well, that's probably true, but it's not my point here. MY POINT
is getting you (or trying to, anyway) to examine exactly why you
are clinging to an ancient standard rather than embracing a new
and potentially useful one.
<troll> Of course, perhaps that's the wrong question to ask people
in a C group.... </troll>
The tools you advocate are newer, flashier, and more complex. That
doesn't make them better for this specific purpose.
Newer, certainly. Flashier? Depends on your definition. Do you
consider newspapers, magazines and books to be "flashy"? Would you
prefer *all* printed material be 80-col mono?
As for complex.... hmmm. Setting up Reflections telnet right was
much more involved than merely installing and using my newsreader.
Nice sig block, but it doesn't look very good in a variable-width
font, does it?
Obviously, in a proportionally-spaced environment, I would use a
different sig.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: Keith Thompson wrote:
[...] ...the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
I have no problem reading fixed-width text.
Once again, PLEASE READ THE WORDS. (In fact, one has to wonder if
formatted text wouldn't have helped make the point! :-)
Formatted, proportionally-spaced fonts are *E*A*S*I*E*R to read.
Repeat: eas***>>>IER<<<***
Not "easy". EASIER.
Yes, yes, I understand.
I read the words. My response was not intended to directly refute
what you wrote; I was commenting further on it. To be clear, I don't
disagree with your assertion that variable-width text text (as we see
in books, magazines, most web sites, etc.) is typically easier to read
than fixed-width text. What I dispute is the relevance of that fact
to Usenet.
For much of what I read, including C source code, formatted text
would be more difficult to read.
What, besides source code, would be easier to read in monospace?
Can you name any real book set in monospace? Do you wonder why not?
How about K&R? If monospace is so great, why didn't they use it in
their book? After all, it's *about* C source. If ANY book deserved
to be set in mono, seems K&R would be a good choice.
Yet, it wasn't.
Agreed. When they published K&R, it was well worth it to go to the
effort of formatting it in a variable-width font, as is done for most
books. It might have been easier and cheaper to use a plain
typewriter font; I'm glad they went to the extra effort to make it
more readable.
When I post to Usenet, it's not worth my time to do that kind of
formatting. If HTML postings were generally supported, I suppose I
could go to the effort of specifying that I want this paragraph to be
in a variable-width font, and use <pre>...</pre> for code samples, and
actual *boldface* and _underlining_ where it's appropriate, and so on.
Quite frankly, it's not worth the effort. The content of what I write
is what's important (or unimportant, as the case may be). If you want
to use a newsreader that lets you read it in your favorite font, feel
free; I'm not interested in adding extraneous formatting information.
A variable-width font might be easier to read for running
English text like this,...
There really is no "might be" about it.
Ok, whatever.
...but the drawbacks would greatly outweigh the benefits.
What drawbacks? Seriously. Given the ability to drop into mono
anytime you want/need to, what drawbacks are there that would
outweigh the obvious benefits (benefits enjoyed by just about
every single technical manual, book or magazine you've ever read).
Just about every single technical manual, book, or magazine I've ever
read was produced by professionals. Just about every Usenet posting
I've ever read was not. Look at how much trouble we have with posters
not following the simple plain text standards we have now. I don't
want to give the trolls the ability to shout at me in 36-point
blinking magenta wingdings.
Usenet works just fine as it is.
If it does change from a plain-text forum to one where fancy
formatting is allowed or encouraged, I suppose I'll deal with it, but
I see no sign of that actually happening. (I'm not sure that Usenet
would survive the transition, though of course it's survived a lot of
things before.)
[...] Well, that's probably true, but it's not my point here. MY POINT
is getting you (or trying to, anyway) to examine exactly why you
are clinging to an ancient standard rather than embracing a new
and potentially useful one.
Two reasons: the ancient standard works, and the alleged new standard
doesn't seem to exist.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks*@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:32:45 -0600, Programmer Dude wrote: HTML offers a wonderful, potentially universal, way to add dimension
to text. The EXACT SAME dimension that we've enjoyed for decades in
our books, magazines and newspapers. Why NOT enjoy the power of the
additional information-carrying capacity of formatted text?
One good reason not to use HTML is that HTML sucks rocks if your
goal is to format text. It is not a text-formatting language and
never was intended to be. It does have some deprecated text-
formatting capabilities, but that's not a reason to use it as
the usenet text formatting language.
As for another comment you made, the newsreader I use defaults to
displaying articles in a proportional font. I tried it out for a
week, and then set the font used for article bodies to courier.
I like it better this way.
-Sheldon
>Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: Formatted, proportionally-spaced fonts are *E*A*S*I*E*R to read.
Repeat: eas***>>>IER<<<***
Not "easy". EASIER.
In article <ks************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks*@cts.com> wrote:Yes, yes, I understand.
As do I. But I contend that this claim is actually *wrong*!
More precisely, it is insufficient.
Proportional fonts printed at high resolutions (several thousand
dpi) have been found to be easier to read when printed on paper.
Proportional fonts (mis)displayed on low-resolution, typically 75
and up to perhaps 100 dpi, computer screens have not been shown to
be easier to read. As I understand it, studies conflict, but still
lean towards "fixed-width fonts are easier to read".
I read the words. My response was not intended to directly refute
what you wrote; I was commenting further on it. To be clear, I don't
disagree with your assertion that variable-width text text (as we see
in books, magazines, most web sites, etc.) is typically easier to read
than fixed-width text. What I dispute is the relevance of that fact
to Usenet.
Even on web sites, I find the variable-width fonts rather klunky.
Some of the better rendering engines, combined with antialiased
fonts of sufficient sizes, do a better job, making it about as
readable as fixed-width text. But there remain a number of stumbling
blocks, including people whose web pages are designed for very low
resolution (e.g., 640 x 480) displays -- I use 1600x1200 on this
screen, and 1920x1200 on my Mac, and have found Mozilla's "ignore
the web page's tiny-size-font requests" feature invaluable. Text
meant to be shown at (say) 9 points, but actually rendered at the
equivalent of approximately 5 points, is quite eye-straining.
When (and I use the word "when" because I believe "if" is incorrect)
we have 300+ dpi computer displays -- preferably wall-size, say
around 40,000 by 30,000 or so pixels -- *then* it may be time to
move to proportional fonts. :-) (Maybe the wall-size screen ratio
should be 16:9 rather than 4:3.)
Just about every single technical manual, book, or magazine I've ever
read was produced by professionals.
(Well, there was "Wired" magazine. :-) )
Just about every Usenet posting I've ever read was not.
Indeed. I suspect far too many would look like, well, "Wired"
magazine...
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://67.40.109.61/torek/index.html (for the moment)
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Keith Thompson wrote:
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> writes: What, besides source code, would be easier to read in monospace?
Can you name any real book set in monospace? Do you wonder why not?
I have seen books in Borders stores set in monospace. The ones
I'm thinking of are not "art" books, either. They're mathematical
monographs bound in flimsy paper covers, often with the symbols
drawn in by hand and then Xeroxed. See below for why this is a
good thing.
How about K&R? If monospace is so great, why didn't they use it in
their book? After all, it's *about* C source. If ANY book deserved
to be set in mono, seems K&R would be a good choice.
Yet, it wasn't.
Agreed. When they published K&R, it was well worth it to go to the
effort of formatting it in a variable-width font, as is done for most
books. It might have been easier and cheaper to use a plain
typewriter font; I'm glad they went to the extra effort to make it
more readable.
Keith is right: plain ASCII text is one of the easiest media to
format readably. It's not that plain text is easier to read than
proportionally formatted text; it's that one can more easily (to
use a resident Brit's phrase) make a pig's breakfast of proportionally
formatted stuff.
For paper stuff, typewriting or even text editing is often cheaper
than word processing, too, as Keith points out. That's one reason
why those monographs were fixed-pitch -- cost. (Another reason, I
suppose, would be the substance-over-aesthetics attitude Keith
described.)
When I post to Usenet, it's not worth my time to do that kind of
formatting. If HTML postings were generally supported, I suppose I
could go to the effort of specifying that I want this paragraph to be
in a variable-width font, and use <pre>...</pre> for code samples, and
actual *boldface* and _underlining_ where it's appropriate, and so on.
Quite frankly, it's not worth the effort.
I completely agree. Your newsreader, that lets you read HTML
mail -- does it let you compose HTML mail, too? Easily? Without
a lot of fussy clicking of buttons and so on? -- You know, it
probably does. But is it really *easier* to hit Ctrl-B instead
of Shift-8 when I mean *bold*, or Ctrl-U instead of Shift[-]?
I don't think it is. And if the editor were to really give you
control of the process, the composition of HTML messages could
easily take much longer than the composition of messages free
from <meta> tags, hyperlinks, and what-have-you.
The content of what I write
is what's important (or unimportant, as the case may be). If you want
to use a newsreader that lets you read it in your favorite font, feel
free; I'm not interested in adding extraneous formatting information.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that *some* news archive out there
on the Web will do that sort of trivial formatting for you.
ISTR that Google automatically hyperlinkifies URLs in Usenet
posts, although it doesn't go so far as to edit in *bold* <b>
tags or /italic/ <i> tags. (That's a good, tractable AI problem
right there.)
<snip> What drawbacks? Seriously. Given the ability to drop into mono
anytime you want/need to, what drawbacks are there that would
outweigh the obvious benefits (benefits enjoyed by just about
every single technical manual, book or magazine you've ever read).
Just about every single technical manual, book, or magazine I've ever
read was produced by professionals. Just about every Usenet posting
I've ever read was not. Look at how much trouble we have with posters
not following the simple plain text standards we have now. I don't
want to give the trolls the ability to shout at me in 36-point
blinking magenta wingdings.
***HEAR HEAR!***
(See, couldn't that have been a hell of a lot more annoying
in HTML?)
Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
count hits on private email.
I suspect that HTML will never make it into Usenet. Those
interested in making their correspondences look pretty are
usually simply not interested in public discourse.
my $.02,
-Arthur
Programmer Dude wrote:
.... snip about html in newsgroups ...
Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
Yes it is. How many illegible html pages have you seen because
some imbecile carefully selected colors and whatnot that have no
contrast to you. After 50 odd years those jokers demonstrated to
me that I am partially color-blind. Also fancy background
patterns that take all year to render. Also little bitty fonts
that require a Hubble scope to see. Some of them even pack the
html up as 6 bit encoded, making things unsearchable and hard to
filter.
So the best (newsgroup) technique is "see html, kill html".
To make things readable simply use proper paragraphing, spelling,
punctuation, limit line length to about 65 chars, and use text.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Programmer Dude wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
Where did Keith Thompson mention such a desire?
[sigh] This is you being deliberately obtuse again, and I'm SO not
interesting in sinking down to that level.
No, it's you making an ad hominem attack on a valuable contributor to this
newsgroup, and then not backing it up when called on it. Too late, Chris.
You *already* sank to that level, and I don't plan on following you down.
Will you apologise publicly to Keith Thompson for the slur?
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:42:46 -0500 (EST)
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Keith Thompson wrote:
<snip>
The content of what I write
is what's important (or unimportant, as the case may be). If you
want to use a newsreader that lets you read it in your favorite
font, feel free; I'm not interested in adding extraneous formatting
information.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that *some* news archive out there
on the Web will do that sort of trivial formatting for you.
ISTR that Google automatically hyperlinkifies URLs in Usenet
posts, although it doesn't go so far as to edit in *bold* <b>
tags or /italic/ <i> tags. (That's a good, tractable AI problem
right there.)
I've used at least one news reader which *did* apply *bold*, /italic/,
_underline_ and possibly other mark ups and did a good job of it. So
people who want such things have the option of choosing a news reader
that supports them *without* causing problems people who do not want
them.
<snip> What drawbacks? Seriously. Given the ability to drop into mono
anytime you want/need to, what drawbacks are there that would
outweigh the obvious benefits (benefits enjoyed by just about
every single technical manual, book or magazine you've ever read).
Just about every single technical manual, book, or magazine I've
ever read was produced by professionals. Just about every Usenet
posting I've ever read was not. Look at how much trouble we have
with posters not following the simple plain text standards we have
now. I don't want to give the trolls the ability to shout at me in
36-point blinking magenta wingdings.
***HEAR HEAR!***
(See, couldn't that have been a hell of a lot more annoying
in HTML?)
Nor do I really want to give spammers the ability to count hits
on Usenet postings, like HTML mail has given them the ability to
count hits on private email.
Of course, a sufficiently dumb rendering engine (i.e. one that does not
follow links) solves that problem.
I suspect that HTML will never make it into Usenet. Those
interested in making their correspondences look pretty are
usually simply not interested in public discourse.
It can also make things look a lot messier what person A formats one way
then person B replies but formats the stuff s/he writes differently then
person C chooses yet another style...
I've seen it on web forums where simple markups are possible and IMHO it
makes it harder to read. One of many reasons I stick with Usenet rather
than web forums.
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes: Programmer Dude wrote:
... snip about html in newsgroups ...
Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
Yes it is. How many illegible html pages have you seen because
some imbecile carefully selected colors and whatnot that have no
contrast to you. [...]
To follow up on that, I use a text-based news/mailreader that has
hooks into a text-based HTML renderer that supports color. You'd
be surprised (or maybe not) just how often HTML articles are
completely unreadable because they render as white-on-white.
--
"Given that computing power increases exponentially with time,
algorithms with exponential or better O-notations
are actually linear with a large constant."
--Mike Lee This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
