Michel Bardiaux <mi*************@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4********************@giganews.com>... Mark Shelor wrote:
OK, Sidney, I am considering it. I can certainly understand the premise
that a group might choose to entertain ONLY those questions that can be
resolved purely by a reading or clarification of (drum roll please) The
Standard. But how utterly boring, and what a waste of talent. It
reduces the newgroups participants to a mere gaggle of lawyers.
I agree 100% with you.
Mark Shelor's question was off-topic, but not for the reasons
mentioned.
To interface C and Perl, it is necessary to *call* functions. The
standard however does not define the stack size, so the behavior of
any function that calls another function is undefined, and therefore
we can not discuss it here. QED.
Yeah, sure. You can predict the behavior of function calls *if* the
stack is known to be big enough, but by the same logic, you can
predict a lot of things if some extras are known. Well, they ain't.
Not in The Standard!
So, read my lips: no...function...calls!
We can only discuss things that are happening entirely inside
"main()". Everything else ist verboten!
Heil...
MSG
Nov 14 '05
109  4056 
Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> spoke thus: Possible, I suppose, or possibly Seinfeld fans are a special class
<g>. BTW, I did watch an entire episode once. I never heard the term
"Soup Nazi" until now, though. Must have watched the wrong episode.
Considering I've never seen it, I'm just going on hearsay. It
wouldn't be the first time I taste shoe rubber... ;(
I know that "gypped" is supposedly a reference to Gypsy business
practices ;-) I suppose the theory is that "jerryrigged" refers to
Germans? I doubt that's accurate - I think the consensus is that it
(and jerry-built) came from the old naval term "jury-built", referring
to a makeshift contrivance, as in "jury-mast."
....and speaking of shoe rubber, a tasty byte [sic] right here. The
consensus according to dictionary.com is that you are correct.
To put it succinctly, "D'oh!" (Although dictionary.com at least
supports my statement about "gypped.")
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Alan Balmer wrote:
Possible, I suppose, or possibly Seinfeld fans are a special class
<g>. BTW, I did watch an entire episode once. I never heard the term
"Soup Nazi" until now, though. Must have watched the wrong episode.
Was just one episode as far as I know. A veru good one in fact.
"No soup for you!"
--
Thomas.
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:34:33 +0000, the right honourable Thomas Stegen
CES2000 <ts************@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote: Erik wrote:
I sort of have promised myself to not participate in these threads,
but I feel I cannot let this one go by.
Yes, and nothing has changed much since.
C is still a religion rather than a production tool, to many.
As such, we can recognize religious fundamentalism.
That someone chooses not to discuss certain issues here which
are somewhat related to C programming does not mean they do not
discuss it or even use it somewhere else.
Context serves as a limiting factor you know. If someone asks
how to turn up gcc to maximimum warning level I choose not to
answer even though I know how to do this. Because you see,
this is a mechanism I (and several others) use to keep this
group maximimally useful. It is called focus, as it is now I find
that I either find something interesting and educational or I
already know it and can perform quality control on the material.
and it's the only mechanism there is for unmoderated newsgroups.
Foul language is not, calling names is not.
Regulars here have found the path to take to make the group
more useful to them, why should they give way to whining newbies
who wants to make it less useful? Out of kindness of their hearts?
Internet, Usenet, comp.lang.c, is not only for "regulars".
It's for anybody with a connection to the net. You pay your ISP for
that.
It's even for people who just need a quick answer, and have no time to
first follow a group for weeks, before daring to pose a question.
If one doesn't like that, one sets up a moderated group.
I don't think so. No matter what you think, there are exceedingly
few people on usenet who are only after giving away free help to
others, if there is no gain for someone they will leave.
You get what you pay for they say and they say you pay nothing
on usenet. That is wrong, we buy knowledge and ideas with knowledge
and ideas.
No. in buying and selling there is enforceable obligation. Not so on
the net.
If you don't pay for your groceries, someone will feel cheated.
On Usenet, I can't think of a situation is which I would feel cheated.
By keeping this group focused I have more to pay with
and can so buy more.
The value of Usenet does not go down with questions that are
off-topic. The very mechanism of ignoring will filter and regulate.
I can't expect a solution to my bicycle problem on comp.lang.c, can I
?
Think of what happens when you go off-topic in a face to face meeting:
people look at you and kindly tell you they were talking about
something else and you say "oops, sorry", and you walk on.
On comp.lang.c things go differently. The lack of identity causes
people to become incredibly rude and uncivilised. They are like the
nice daddy, who becomes a monster once enclosed by steel and
smoke-glass windows of his Ferrari, invisible, unknown.
Imagine some of the conversations here on Usenet taking place in real
life !
comp.lang.c is not the only group where this happens, to be fair...
And no, I do not have the illusion, these attitudes will ever change.
There is a beast in all of us...
fr gr
Erik
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> spoke thus: and it's the only mechanism there is for unmoderated newsgroups.
Foul language is not, calling names is not.
Depends on the newsgroup - those activities are expected on
alt.flame, for example. Here, of course, they are the mark of a
heathen.
It's even for people who just need a quick answer, and have no time to
first follow a group for weeks, before daring to pose a question.
If one doesn't like that, one sets up a moderated group.
Except for clueless first-time-touching-a-newsreader newbies, there's
really no excuse for not doing the minimum - look for the group's FAQ
or charter and read existing posts. If all posters to comp.lang.c did
as much, no post would ever be labelled offtopic.
On comp.lang.c things go differently. The lack of identity causes
people to become incredibly rude and uncivilised. They are like the
nice daddy, who becomes a monster once enclosed by steel and
smoke-glass windows of his Ferrari, invisible, unknown.
With few exceptions, most of the off-topic redirects are quite
courteous and polite. I wouldn't even call Dan "incredibly rude and
uncivilized" - blunt, perhaps, but not uncivilized. You want
uncivilized, read alt.flame.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:52:01 -0600, the right honourable Morris Dovey
<mr*****@iedu.com> wrote: Erik wrote:
A problem with the internet is one of identity. We do not know the
regulars, never seen them, never heard them, never met them.
I have great difficulty in trusting unseen people on the net.
Especially trusting them with any power to decide...etc.
Erik...
You can see my ugly face and read a brief work history at
http://www.iedu.com/mrd/mrd_self.html. You can do a Google groups
search on my name or that of any of the regulars to at least
acquire a notion as to participation in this ng - and you can
review the archived posts of anyone who has posted here.
yes, but then ? You may live in Greenland and wwe cannot ever meet in
person.
You are still not my collegue or my neighbor who I can meet face to
face. The net can never be a substitute for p2p.
Deciding to trust and/or rating the proficiency of any of the
regulars (or others) is /your/ burden.
it's no burden. It is my responsability, yes.
No one can or desires tomake these decisions for you.
FWIW, I've found the regulars to be knowledgable, intelligent,
generous, and straightforeward - if not always diplomatic. I'd be
proud to work with any of them on any project.
but do you *trust* them ? now ?
You will look at their answers to your questions differently than at
those of a gal you never saw here before, sure.
But would you, f.i. insert their code unseen in your project ? Not me,
never.
FYI, i worked for 25 years in tech software dev. and built code that
ran for 15 years in an industrial environment with great succes.
I've used from assembler via Pascal, Basic, Forth, Fortran to C and
god knows how many more languages.
I've seen programming methods and (standard)languages come and go.
I'm no newbie. And programming is still in its infancy.
frgr
Erik
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:55:07 -0700, the right honourable Alan Balmer
<al******@att.net> wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:45:48 +0100, Erik <et57 at correos calor dot
com> wrote:
The remedy here on usenet is, I think, the moderated group.
Usenet anarchy, however attractive sometimes, does not always work...
You seem to be trying to prove that.
naaaa, not really. Bringing in some arguments, at the most.
Arguments against the overly strict off-topic-cops.
Moderated groups, while useful, have their own problems, chief of
which is timeliness - one can't expect a reply to a post within a
short time.
absolutely. But they are strictly on-topic. Boring like a
fundamentalist religious gathering.
frgr
Erik
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:00:21 +0000, the right honourable Thomas Stegen
CES2000 <ts************@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote: Erik wrote:
Must not the conclusion be:
The anarchy at the base of Usenet or even Internet, does not always
work very well for everybody ?
Apparently so. Right now I consider comp.lang.c to work well
for me. You can try to change it all you want. If you succeed
I will leave and I guess many of the other regulars will too.
How can I succeedin something I am not trying to accomplish ?
I have no sympathy for your case unless you can convince me that
things would improve for me. As it is, I can discuss anything
I want on usenet. Each newsgroup stands as a beacon of competence
giving guidance.
I have no case.
You are proposing a gray soup of knowledge where I might or might
not find what I am looking for. Thousands of comp.lang.misc groups
is something I do not want to be a part of.
I'm not advocating gray soup. I point out, that a 100% clear soup
tastes like water.
comp.lang.c will always be accessible to everyone...
You do not appear to understand what it means for something
to be anarchic. Since there is anarchy I can fight to keep
or make things the way I want them.
But there is no war !
comp.lang.c is accessible for everyone. It is not open for
every topic.
No, but the border are not as clear as some people want it to be.
I my opinion.
frgr
Erik
On 11 Feb 2004 18:52:15 GMT, the right honourable Da*****@cern.ch (Dan
Pop) wrote: In <k2********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes:
And there is no charter. So who determins which questions are
off-topic ? the "regulars" you say.
What would be a technical newsgroup without its regulars? A next to
useless place, because you'd never have any a priori indication about
the quality of one answer or another. Since they are the most valuable
resource of a newsgroup, they also have the privilege to decide the
"moderation policy".
A problem with the internet is one of identity. We do not know the
regulars, never seen them, never heard them, never met them.
I have great difficulty in trusting unseen people on the net.
When choosing technical books, do you select *only* the ones whose
authors you know personally (have met, seen, spoken to)? Why would be
the Internet any different?
Publishing books is an entirely different process than posting on
Usenet. There are collegues of the writer, review people , publishers
etc.etc. It's not easy to publish a book.
and there is no peer review for a usenet posting. Only after the fact.
Especially trusting them with any power to decide...etc.
You don't have to trust them with that power, it is a power they
acquired themselves, based on their own merits. If you don't like the
job they do, find another newsgroup or create one of your own.
But I do like the job they do, most of the time. But trust is a
different thing.
(for that, there are the moderated groups. One can ban all one likes
in a mod. group. No problem with that)
No white-robed high-priests for me, thank you.
They exist and exert their power, whether you like it or not.
hm, I am a fan of Immanuel Kant in this: I use my own brain.
My rule of thumb is: only trust if you have to. Or, As Ronnie Reagan
once said about the russians: trust but verify.
And I cannot verify on the net.
That's your problem. On the net, the credentials of each individual
yes indeed it is my problem. But I solved it :-)
are his posts and they are available to anyone interested.
There is no charter. So don't bark at people who decide by the name of
the news group: comp.lang.c: the C computer language. full stop.
OK, so you're now trying to act as a super-high-priest, imposing to the
high-priests what (not) to do. Why would they bother to listen to you?
so I am right ?
They listen, apparently...judging from the length of this thread...
The Usenet rules have been cast in concrete long ago: the newcomer *must*
lurk for a while, in order to figure out what the newsgroup is about,
rather than act based on *assumptions* derived from the newsgroup's name.
In the process, he'll also figure out who are the newsgroup's regulars
that are worth paying attention to and who is/are the village idiot(s).
There is no concrete on the net.
And it's only worth making rules, if they can be enforced. Ask any
cop.
You have as many chances to change the Usenet rules as you have to impose
your will to the newsgroup's regulars. In other words, you're wasting
your time.
but i don't want to change rules. I want to point out uncivilised
behaviour. (if only I could change it too !)
Dan
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:25:40 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Erik <et57 at correos
calor dot com> wrote: Yes, and nothing has changed much since.
C is still a religion rather than a production tool, to many.
As such, we can recognize religious fundamentalism.
We need to guard against fundamentalism in any religion. Because it
narrows our thinking. We live "by the book" in that way, instead of
like free people.
Yeah, sure but you miss the point entirely. This group is for discussion of
C as it is defined by the Standard. That doesn't preclude discussion
elsewhere about gnu C, database interfaces, php and C or C shell.
As always, in using tech standards we need to question those standards
at all times.
Thats what comp.std.c is for.
For the solution to the problem is most important.
And standards are and should be a moving target.
Um, no, the Standard is a document ratified by ISO. It changes slowly, via
due process, and not at the whim of CLC.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On 10 Feb 2004 23:42:23 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ms*****@yahoo.com (MSG)
wrote: "Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message news:<_Z*******************@newsread2.news.pas.ear thlink.net>...
[Ich bin] "Mr. Wahler".
Dear Self-Appointed Unmoderated Newsgroup Moderator Impersonator,
Mr. or Ms., you still troll newsgroups, posting a gazillion messages a
day telling others in a very rude way what they shouldn't be talking
about, hence, regarless of your ancestry, you are, by definition, a
garden variety Topic Nazi.
idiot.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:45:48 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Erik <et57 at correos
calor dot com> wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:44:02 +0000 (UTC), the right honourable Richard
Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
MSG wrote:
Everything else ist verboten!
Heil...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
Thank you for that link.
It illustrates a common debating strategy, to poison a debate:
You obviously don't understand godwins law.
By the way, *plonk*
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On 10 Feb 2004 23:42:23 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ms*****@yahoo.com (MSG)
wrote: "Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message news:<_Z*******************@newsread2.news.pas.ear thlink.net>...
[Ich bin] "Mr. Wahler".
Dear Self-Appointed Unmoderated Newsgroup Moderator Impersonator,
Yeah, whatever.
*plonk*
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Erik wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:34:33 +0000, the right honourable Thomas Stegen
CES2000 <ts************@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
Context serves as a limiting factor you know. If someone asks
how to turn up gcc to maximimum warning level I choose not to
answer even though I know how to do this. Because you see,
this is a mechanism I (and several others) use to keep this
group maximimally useful. It is called focus, as it is now I find
that I either find something interesting and educational or I
already know it and can perform quality control on the material.
and it's the only mechanism there is for unmoderated newsgroups.
This is false. This is what I have chosen based on the fact that
there are enough people standing on the walls already. And most
people understand and are even thankful when they are pointed
to a more appropriate venue.
A comp.lang.c.moderated would not be nearly as useful to anyone.
Foul language is not, calling names is not.
Of course it is not. And you haven't seen me arguing in that direction
either. I am arguing against your position of diluting this newsgroup
with everything related to C. And the foul language more often than not
comes from those who feel rejected because they were told they were
off topic. If that happens, the big guns come out and the offenders
deserves everything they get.
Regulars here have found the path to take to make the group
more useful to them, why should they give way to whining newbies
who wants to make it less useful? Out of kindness of their hearts?
Internet, Usenet, comp.lang.c, is not only for "regulars".
It's for anybody with a connection to the net.
Of course. Everyone can become a regular. Without the
regulars there would be no useful newsgroups. No matter
where you go on on the internet or in real life this is
going to be the case unless you are a politician and choose
the answer the questions you want without regard for the
actual questions.
You pay your ISP for
that.
You pay your ISP for access, not to post whatever you want wherever
you want.
It's even for people who just need a quick answer, and have no time to
first follow a group for weeks, before daring to pose a question.
If one doesn't like that, one sets up a moderated group.
Or tell them to go somewhere else. Why do you have this notion
that all human conduct and interaction must be covered by rules and
regulations? If we set up a moderated newsgroup we loose, because
moderation (in the sense of someone reviewing all the posts)
detracts from quality.
I don't think so. No matter what you think, there are exceedingly
few people on usenet who are only after giving away free help to
others, if there is no gain for someone they will leave.
You get what you pay for they say and they say you pay nothing
on usenet. That is wrong, we buy knowledge and ideas with knowledge
and ideas.
No. in buying and selling there is enforceable obligation. Not so on
the net.
Enforceable obligation has nothing to do with it. Trade laws or
whatever is so wholly irrelevant to the concept of trade that it
is almost unbelievable to read such a statement. Don't you see that
those laws are there to protect both parties? There are no such laws
on usenet so we protect ourselves.
Again, the concept of a value for value trade is not predicated
upon the laws sourrounding it.
It is like saying "No you cannot mutually benefit because it
is not an enforcable obligation." If I choose to trust someone
on the web it is my ass on the line, my responsibility and my
gain if everything goes well. More often than not, everything
goes well.
If you don't pay for your groceries, someone will feel cheated.
On Usenet, I can't think of a situation is which I would feel cheated.
On usenet if you feel cheated there is very little you can do
about it. So we protect ourself against it by telling off-topic
people to go somewhere else.
So if, as you say, you don't feel cheated by us telling you to
take your off-topicness somewhere else, why don't you just take
it somewhere else?
By keeping this group focused I have more to pay with
and can so buy more.
The value of Usenet does not go down with questions that are
off-topic.
Why not (if you don't argue for your statements they are essentially
worthless)? If I have to wade through tons off stuff I have no interest
in that devaluates the experience (or maybe you have some super filter
for filtering out the chaff from the wheat in which case no groups would
be needed at all!)
The very mechanism of ignoring will filter and regulate.
False. Your claim has been disputed. comp.lang.c++ tried your
approach. Didn't work. They died and had to work very hard to
get back on track.
In an ideal world of course this would maybe be the best approach,
but then again, in an ideal world noone would post off-topic questions
either. Ignoring does not work as long someone does not ignore and
choose to answer, and someone always does.
I can't expect a solution to my bicycle problem on comp.lang.c, can I
?
Of course not. It seems you are beginning to understand. The line needs
to be drawn somewhere, at the border cases things might seem a bit
strange, but that is the nature of the beast.
Think of what happens when you go off-topic in a face to face meeting:
people look at you and kindly tell you they were talking about
something else and you say "oops, sorry", and you walk on.
But on comp.lang.c it is apparently ok to not walk on, and start
arguing about how people should be discussing something else?
Why do you say this? Why do you act this way? I assume you are using
the above to illustrate how things should be done? Remember you are
the newcomer who were that we were talking about something else.
On comp.lang.c things go differently. The lack of identity causes
people to become incredibly rude and uncivilised.
If you pay any sort of attention you will notice that it is usually
the off-topicers who become incredibly rude and uncivilised.
--
Thomas.
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:12:10 +0100, Erik <et57 at correos calor dot
com> wrote:
FWIW, I've found the regulars to be knowledgable, intelligent,
generous, and straightforeward - if not always diplomatic. I'd be
proud to work with any of them on any project.
but do you *trust* them ? now ?
For guidance, yes. However, I would not blindly use code suggested
here without first understanding it and believing that it solved the
problem I presented. I suppose that could be read as mis-trust, but I
think of it as contributing to my education. I'm looking for
verifiable contributions to my skill and understanding, and the
verification is part of the learning process. I trust the "regulars"
enough that when my own understanding disagrees with them, there's a
significant probability that I'm wrong ;-) Not to say that I won't
argue about it, because that also contributes to my education, and
quite likely to the education of other readers.
"Trust them"? I guess I'd have to know what you mean by that. Trust
them to write good code and give good advice? Yes. Would I hire one of
them to write code? Yes. Would I test the code they produced? Yes.
Would I give them my bank password? No.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net Of course it is not. And you haven't seen me arguing in that direction
either.
No I did not. and did not imply you did.
I am arguing against your position of diluting this newsgroup
with everything related to C.
I did not. I point out, that the borders can not be as clear as some
would like them to be, and that uncivilised behaviour does not do a
usenet group any good.
And the foul language more often than not
comes from those who feel rejected because they were told they were
off topic. If that happens, the big guns come out and the offenders
deserves everything they get.
You should see some of the names I was called...
You pay your ISP for access, not to post whatever you want wherever
you want.
you stretch things a bit here: I do not propose to post whatever etc..
It's even for people who just need a quick answer, and have no time to
first follow a group for weeks, before daring to pose a question.
If one doesn't like that, one sets up a moderated group.
Or tell them to go somewhere else. Why do you have this notion
that all human conduct and interaction must be covered by rules and
regulations? If we set up a moderated newsgroup we loose, because
moderation (in the sense of someone reviewing all the posts)
detracts from quality.
I do not propose a moderated group. I just point out that that would
be a solution to those who want borders clear cut.
No. in buying and selling there is enforceable obligation. Not so on
the net.
Enforceable obligation has nothing to do with it. Trade laws or
whatever is so wholly irrelevant to the concept of trade that it
is almost unbelievable to read such a statement. Don't you see that
those laws are there to protect both parties? There are no such laws
on usenet so we protect ourselves.
that's what I said.
Again, the concept of a value for value trade is not predicated
upon the laws sourrounding it.
It is like saying "No you cannot mutually benefit because it
is not an enforcable obligation." If I choose to trust someone
on the web it is my ass on the line, my responsibility and my
gain if everything goes well. More often than not, everything
goes well.
yes.
If you don't pay for your groceries, someone will feel cheated.
On Usenet, I can't think of a situation is which I would feel cheated.
On usenet if you feel cheated there is very little you can do
about it. So we protect ourself against it by telling off-topic
people to go somewhere else.
you don't feel *cheated* in an off-topic case, do you ??
I was not talking about off-topic really, but about not-so-clear
boundaries.
Why not (if you don't argue for your statements they are essentially
worthless)?
arguing is something else than the names people get called here
sometimes.
The very mechanism of ignoring will filter and regulate.
False. Your claim has been disputed. comp.lang.c++ tried your
approach. Didn't work. They died and had to work very hard to
get back on track.
maybe the naming of the *language* was not very smart here , grin...
c....c++ hm..
In an ideal world of course this would maybe be the best approach,
but then again, in an ideal world noone would post off-topic questions
either. Ignoring does not work as long someone does not ignore and
choose to answer, and someone always does.
I can't expect a solution to my bicycle problem on comp.lang.c, can I
?
Of course not. It seems you are beginning to understand. The line needs
to be drawn somewhere, at the border cases things might seem a bit
strange, but that is the nature of the beast.
Think of what happens when you go off-topic in a face to face meeting:
people look at you and kindly tell you they were talking about
something else and you say "oops, sorry", and you walk on.
But on comp.lang.c it is apparently ok to not walk on, and start
arguing about how people should be discussing something else?
no, as stated before I'm not saying that at all. I state that what I
see is that The Standard tends to take away flexibility in some
peoples thinking, at least here in this group.
And that is a pity.
Why do you say this? Why do you act this way? I assume you are using
the above to illustrate how things should be done? Remember you are
the newcomer who were that we were talking about something else.
I'm no newcomer. I work in software making for about 25 years.
On comp.lang.c things go differently. The lack of identity causes
people to become incredibly rude and uncivilised.
If you pay any sort of attention you will notice that it is usually
the off-topicers who become incredibly rude and uncivilised.
not my experience.
frgr
Erik
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:08:47 -0700, the right honourable Alan Balmer
<al******@att.net> wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:12:10 +0100, Erik <et57 at correos calor dot
com> wrote:
FWIW, I've found the regulars to be knowledgable, intelligent,
generous, and straightforeward - if not always diplomatic. I'd be
proud to work with any of them on any project.
but do you *trust* them ? now ?
For guidance, yes. However, I would not blindly use code suggested
here without first understanding it and believing that it solved the
problem I presented. I suppose that could be read as mis-trust,
I think it is even not right or dishonest to expect or ask for such
trust.
but I
think of it as contributing to my education. I'm looking for
verifiable contributions to my skill and understanding, and the
verification is part of the learning process. I trust the "regulars"
enough that when my own understanding disagrees with them, there's a
significant probability that I'm wrong ;-) Not to say that I won't
argue about it, because that also contributes to my education, and
quite likely to the education of other readers.
"Trust them"? I guess I'd have to know what you mean by that. Trust
them to write good code and give good advice? Yes. Would I hire one of
them to write code? Yes. Would I test the code they produced? Yes.
Would I give them my bank password? No.
Thank you for your input.
And yes, you understood what I mean by trust :-)
One small point :
Morris Dovey wrote above: "if not always diplomatic".
Wouldn't it be advisable to think twice before hiring such a person ?
Or must we indeed make a sharp division between "on-line" and "in real
life" ?
now I really do go off-topic...
But then, shouldn't ethics, if I may use that word in this context,
be an integral part of any human endeavour ?
someone is going to bite...
frgr Erik
Erik wrote: But then, shouldn't ethics, if I may use that word in this context,
be an integral part of any human endeavour ?
someone is going to bite...
Well of course. We do have a common /Standard/ by which we judge
all C programming behavior. I just knew this was going to wend
its way back to topicality - eventually. 8-D
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
"Erik" <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote in message
news:b8********************************@4ax.com... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:52:01 -0600, the right honourable Morris Dovey
<mr*****@iedu.com> wrote:
Erik wrote:
A problem with the internet is one of identity. We do not know the
regulars, never seen them, never heard them, never met them.
I have great difficulty in trusting unseen people on the net.
Especially trusting them with any power to decide...etc.
Erik...
You can see my ugly face and read a brief work history at
http://www.iedu.com/mrd/mrd_self.html. You can do a Google groups
search on my name or that of any of the regulars to at least
acquire a notion as to participation in this ng - and you can
review the archived posts of anyone who has posted here.
yes, but then ? You may live in Greenland and wwe cannot ever meet in
person.
You are still not my collegue or my neighbor who I can meet face to
face. The net can never be a substitute for p2p.
I have found that here, sometimes folks will indicate that someone
posting with an 'anonymous' handle should at least use their real
name, in the interest of credibility. I know many have 'privacy
concerns', so I certainly do understand the practice of 'address
munging'. Everyone will do what he feels he must.
But as for myself, I post under my real name, using my real email
address. Anyone who wants to would have a very easy time physically
locating me. Yet nobody has ever shown up at my door, enraged at
something I posted on Usenet, threating violence, etc. (No, that's
not an invitation. :-) After all, who knows what sort of wild
(or domesticated) animals are roaming around my rural property,
and which ones are or are not in my employ. :-))
Deciding to trust and/or rating the proficiency of any of the
regulars (or others) is /your/ burden.
it's no burden. It is my responsability, yes.
No one can or desires tomake these decisions for you.
FWIW, I've found the regulars to be knowledgable, intelligent,
generous, and straightforeward - if not always diplomatic. I'd be
proud to work with any of them on any project.
but do you *trust* them ? now ?
Some of them, yes, I do, based upon my experience interacting
with them. Others I would not trust to wash my car.
You will look at their answers to your questions differently than at
those of a gal you never saw here before, sure.
Of course I consider answers from those I've become acquainted with
differently from that of those with whom I haven't.
But would you, f.i. insert their code unseen in your project ? Not me,
never.
Inserting *any* code unseen would be very unwise. *Everyone* makes
mistakes at least occasionally. I'd review *any* code coming from
outside.
But were I to need (for whatever reason) a piece of code written
that I would use in my project, I would *without hesitation*, hire
certain people here to do it, others, I'd need to interview, others
I'd need to see code examples, references, etc., others, never in a
million years. A couple in the first cateory would be e.g. Richard
Heathfield and Jack Klein. I think you'd be in the second-to-last
category. Basing all this of course upon the articles by each I have
read here over the years, sometimes combined with evidence of their
reputation from other sources.
FYI, i worked for 25 years in tech software dev. and built code that
ran for 15 years in an industrial environment with great succes.
I've used from assembler via Pascal, Basic, Forth, Fortran to C and
god knows how many more languages.
I've seen programming methods and (standard)languages come and go.
I'm no newbie. And programming is still in its infancy.
IMO boasting will only detract from your credibility.
I'm not a programming novice either, but I won't go around
touting my exploits for purposes of 'winning' a debate.
-Mike
"Erik" <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote in message
news:os********************************@4ax.com... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:08:47 -0700, the right honourable Alan Balmer
<al******@att.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:12:10 +0100, Erik <et57 at correos calor dot
com> wrote:
FWIW, I've found the regulars to be knowledgable, intelligent,
generous, and straightforeward - if not always diplomatic. I'd be
proud to work with any of them on any project.
but do you *trust* them ? now ?
For guidance, yes. However, I would not blindly use code suggested
here without first understanding it and believing that it solved the
problem I presented. I suppose that could be read as mis-trust,
I think it is even not right or dishonest to expect or ask for such
trust.
but I
think of it as contributing to my education. I'm looking for
verifiable contributions to my skill and understanding, and the
verification is part of the learning process. I trust the "regulars"
enough that when my own understanding disagrees with them, there's a
significant probability that I'm wrong ;-) Not to say that I won't
argue about it, because that also contributes to my education, and
quite likely to the education of other readers.
"Trust them"? I guess I'd have to know what you mean by that. Trust
them to write good code and give good advice? Yes. Would I hire one of
them to write code? Yes. Would I test the code they produced? Yes.
Would I give them my bank password? No.
Thank you for your input.
And yes, you understood what I mean by trust :-)
One small point :
Morris Dovey wrote above: "if not always diplomatic".
Wouldn't it be advisable to think twice before hiring such a person ?
Or must we indeed make a sharp division between "on-line" and "in real
life" ?
In my younger days, I did many times make the error of disregarding
*everything* said or advised by someone I 'didn't like', whether
I knew they were correct or not, simply because I didn't like them.
I've learned better since. Call me a moron, then give me a solution
to a problem. By the time I recognize that I have a good solution,
I've completely forgotten the insult.
How many times have you seen someone (or yourself), upon hearing
something he disagreed vehemently about from a politician, say
"what an idiot!". I agree that many/most are what I'd call
'undesirables', but most politicians are quite bright. That's
how they get away with what they do.
now I really do go off-topic...
But then, shouldn't ethics, if I may use that word in this context,
be an integral part of any human endeavour ?
someone is going to bite...
Well since this came up a while back in a thread I participated in,
off topic or not, I'll repeat again here what I said then:
For me, I consider the most important characterstic of someone
I might hire to be their honesty. I'll hire an honest high-school kid
with absolutely no experience before I'd hire a dishonest 'expert'.
Every time. Also, beside the obvious benefits/detriments of each
type of person, imo an honest person is teachable, a dishonest one is not.
-Mike
"Thomas Stegen" <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:40******@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk... Alan Balmer wrote:
Possible, I suppose, or possibly Seinfeld fans are a special class
<g>. BTW, I did watch an entire episode once. I never heard the term
"Soup Nazi" until now, though. Must have watched the wrong episode.
Was just one episode as far as I know. A veru good one in fact.
"No soup for you!"
"Come back ONE YEAR!"
FWIW, I don't think that guy was on any other episodes,
but was referred to in some (Remember, Elaine stole his
recipes. :-) ).
-Mike
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:02:02 +0100, the right honourable Grumble
<in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote:
Richard Bos wrote:
All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
Latinists say) [...]
Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
<g>
Is mr. Bos impersonating ?
Impersonating whom? Cicero? No. I'm merely repeating some of his words.
The process is called "quotation"; you may have heard of it.
Neither, btw, do I have a problem with people being called Catilina,
though on occasion I have been known to inquire how long he or various
others planned to abuse our patience. I am, after all, a minor Bastard
as well as a ditto hacker.
Richard
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: If a standard keeps changing, why have it in the first place? A standard
is something to depend on.
As an engineer who has worked on and contributed to standards, I can
assure you that a standard is a moving target.
As soon as standards, like ISO, are voted from draft to standard, new
work begins on the revision of it.
Of course. But you can't work to an unfinished standard. The finished
ones are the only _reliable_ source of information you have. From a production programmers standpoint, there is no such thing as a
standard. Only (necessarily imperfect) implementations of it.
In the end, your boss only wants a solution.
Wrong. _My_ boss also wants a maintainable program which works correctly
by design, not by accident.
built with inplementations of...
Of course. And when those implementations do _not_ comply with the
Standard, we can use another one. If my code does not comply with the
Standard, though, all we can do is rewrite it. And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
Knowledge, yes. Not vague guesswork and buggy code.
Standardisation lives off buggy code.
Another meaningless statement. Standardisation lives of _all_ previous
code; indeed, a good Standards Committee will take correct, working
extensions of the previous Standard into account, but not buggy, random
ones, nor simply gratuitously non-conforming code. In short: a philosophical view and approach is much better that a
religious one,in my opinion.
I'm sorry, but that is simply non-information.
closed minds do not receive information.
I see... No white-robed high-priests for me, thank you.
We're not talking about high priests here. The analogy is completely
false.
Yes we are and no it's not.
And you know and feel it.
I can tell by your fierceness.
....I see that you have no real arguments, so you need to resort to
personal comments. Easy accusations don't make you right, you know.
Richard
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:52:01 -0600, the right honourable Morris Dovey
<mr*****@iedu.com> wrote:
FWIW, I've found the regulars to be knowledgable, intelligent,
generous, and straightforeward - if not always diplomatic. I'd be
proud to work with any of them on any project.
but do you *trust* them ? now ?
You will look at their answers to your questions differently than at
those of a gal you never saw here before, sure.
But would you, f.i. insert their code unseen in your project ? Not me,
never.
Unseen? I would not insert _any_ code into my programs, unseen. But the
point is, I _have_ seen code from the regulars here, and I know by
experience whose code I can trust and whose code I cannot trust. As for
you, I've never seen any code of you, ever, so you'll have to build up
that trust.
But this is a democratic, egalitarian newsgroup. If you post code, and
it proves to be of high quality, you _can_ gain my trust, no matter who
you are or where you live.
FYI, i worked for 25 years in tech software dev. and built code that
ran for 15 years in an industrial environment with great succes.
I've used from assembler via Pascal, Basic, Forth, Fortran to C and
god knows how many more languages.
Hic Rhodos, hic salta.
Richard
In <ro********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes: On 11 Feb 2004 18:52:15 GMT, the right honourable Da*****@cern.ch (Dan
Pop) wrote:
In <k2********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes:
And there is no charter. So who determins which questions are
off-topic ? the "regulars" you say.
What would be a technical newsgroup without its regulars? A next to
useless place, because you'd never have any a priori indication about
the quality of one answer or another. Since they are the most valuable
resource of a newsgroup, they also have the privilege to decide the
"moderation policy".
A problem with the internet is one of identity. We do not know the
regulars, never seen them, never heard them, never met them.
I have great difficulty in trusting unseen people on the net.
When choosing technical books, do you select *only* the ones whose
authors you know personally (have met, seen, spoken to)? Why would be
the Internet any different?
Publishing books is an entirely different process than posting on
Usenet. There are collegues of the writer, review people , publishers
etc.etc. It's not easy to publish a book.
Yet, there is no shortage of BAD C books on the market. A certain
Schildt has managed to publish at least half a dozen of them...
and there is no peer review for a usenet posting. Only after the fact.
And what's wrong with the after the fact peer review of the Usenet?
It comes a lot faster than the peer review preceding the publishing of
any book.
Especially trusting them with any power to decide...etc.
You don't have to trust them with that power, it is a power they
acquired themselves, based on their own merits. If you don't like the
job they do, find another newsgroup or create one of your own.
But I do like the job they do, most of the time. But trust is a
different thing.
You don't have to trust anyone or anything. But you have to leave
with their moderation or quit the newsgroup.
(for that, there are the moderated groups. One can ban all one likes
in a mod. group. No problem with that)
No white-robed high-priests for me, thank you.
They exist and exert their power, whether you like it or not.
hm, I am a fan of Immanuel Kant in this: I use my own brain.
So do I, but this still doesn't change anything WRT the way this newsgroup
is moderated by its regulars.
My rule of thumb is: only trust if you have to. Or, As Ronnie Reagan
once said about the russians: trust but verify.
And I cannot verify on the net.
That's your problem. On the net, the credentials of each individual
yes indeed it is my problem. But I solved it :-)
Then, why do keep this thread alive? ;-)
are his posts and they are available to anyone interested.
There is no charter. So don't bark at people who decide by the name of
the news group: comp.lang.c: the C computer language. full stop.
OK, so you're now trying to act as a super-high-priest, imposing to the
high-priests what (not) to do. Why would they bother to listen to you?
so I am right ?
They listen, apparently...judging from the length of this thread...
Listen in the sense of reading, not in the sense of adopting your advice.
The Usenet rules have been cast in concrete long ago: the newcomer *must*
lurk for a while, in order to figure out what the newsgroup is about,
rather than act based on *assumptions* derived from the newsgroup's name.
In the process, he'll also figure out who are the newsgroup's regulars
that are worth paying attention to and who is/are the village idiot(s).
There is no concrete on the net.
I was talking about the Usenet, not about the net (whatever that might
be).
And it's only worth making rules, if they can be enforced. Ask any
cop.
They're reasonably well enforced on this newsgroup, as its high signal to
noise ratio proves. You have as many chances to change the Usenet rules as you have to impose
your will to the newsgroup's regulars. In other words, you're wasting
your time.
but i don't want to change rules. I want to point out uncivilised
behaviour. (if only I could change it too !)
Uncivilised behaviour is a fact of life. You have as many chances of
removing it from here as you have from the real life. The only
pragmatic attitude is ignoring it.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
In <lp********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes: As an engineer who has worked on and contributed to standards, I can
assure you that a standard is a moving target.
As soon as standards, like ISO, are voted from draft to standard, new
work begins on the revision of it.
A standard is a snapshot, outdated when taken.
Tell this to the committee members from comp.std.c and you'll be laughed
at.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:56:15 +0100, Erik <et57 at correos calor dot
com> wrote: Think of what happens when you go off-topic in a face to face meeting:
people look at you and kindly tell you they were talking about
something else and you say "oops, sorry", and you walk on.
You leave me a bit puzzled - this is exactly what has happened here,
except that the offender refuses to either move on or join the
conversation in progress. Are you now arguing the other side of the
question?
On comp.lang.c things go differently. The lack of identity causes
people to become incredibly rude and uncivilised.
Yes - so rude as to insist they were right in interrupting the
conversation, and demand that we switch topics.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:46:48 GMT, the right honourable rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:02:02 +0100, the right honourable Grumble
<in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote:
>Richard Bos wrote:
>
>> All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
>> posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
>> Latinists say) [...]
>
>Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
>
><g>
Is mr. Bos impersonating ?
Impersonating whom? Cicero?
No, a latinist.
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:46:48 GMT, the right honourable
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:02:02 +0100, the right honourable Grumble
<in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote:
>Richard Bos wrote:
>
>> All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
>> posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
>> Latinists say) [...]
>
>Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
>
><g>
Is mr. Bos impersonating ?
Impersonating whom? Cicero?
No, a latinist.
Non, Latinam discebam. Hodie, paulisper Latinatus sum, sed olim
discebam.
Richard
On 12 Feb 2004 14:44:28 GMT, the right honourable Da*****@cern.ch (Dan
Pop) wrote: In <lp********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes:
As an engineer who has worked on and contributed to standards, I can
assure you that a standard is a moving target.
As soon as standards, like ISO, are voted from draft to standard, new
work begins on the revision of it.
A standard is a snapshot, outdated when taken.
Tell this to the committee members from comp.std.c and you'll be laughed
at.
Dan
I did discuss this general phenomenon with the convenor of another ISO
standard, who fully agreed.
The reasons are
1: the length of the process: sometimes more than 15 years,
2: the very process of defining a standard: it's an agreement between
many different countries, cultures, industries, each with it's own
agenda.
As such it's a very political process, in which technical arguments
sometimes give way to political or even personal ones.
So, from the viewpoint of a technical person, a programmer or a
compiler designer, often not the most politically-adept, the standard
MUST be imperfect-but-heck-it's-the-best-we-got.
So I prefer to always be critical, always questioning, always use my
own brain, as Kant suggested as a good way to live your life :-)
And, as with any rule-making (law or otherwise), the rules always come
too late, after society has developed a situation in which the rule
may be needed. And in those many years the C-ISO was developed
technical development did not stop, certainly not in our incredibly
fast moving biz.
A standard can be seen as frozen reality, frozen in time, a snapshot.
But nobody stops...
Living by standards... we don't live by the written rules. We live by
the unwritten ones. Every single one of us bends the written rules
more or less , maybe just a tiny little bit, to make his/her life
liveable.
(And yes, you should not let this flexibility become anarchy).
I could give you examples from industry, where a standard was bent and
which was accepted by the market.
My expression "the standard is a moving target" could be a bit
awkward... but you get my drift. English is my third language.
Hihi: making a standard is shooting at a moving target, and missing.
naaaa.
frgr
Erik
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> scribbled the following: Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:46:48 GMT, the right honourable
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: >Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:02:02 +0100, the right honourable Grumble
>> <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote:
>> >Richard Bos wrote:
>> >> All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
>> >> posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
>> >> Latinists say) [...]
>> >
>> >Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
>> >
>> ><g>
>>
>> Is mr. Bos impersonating ?
>
>Impersonating whom? Cicero?
No, a latinist.
Non, Latinam discebam. Hodie, paulisper Latinatus sum, sed olim
discebam.
Ego quoque olim Latinam discebam. Sed credo me linguam Latinam non posse
memorare. Aud quidquid.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Hasta la Vista, Abie!"
- Bart Simpson
Mike Wahler wrote:
"Thomas Stegen" <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:40******@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk...
"No soup for you!"
"Come back ONE YEAR!"
FWIW, I don't think that guy was on any other episodes,
but was referred to in some (Remember, Elaine stole his
recipes. :-) ).
I think he made a cameo in the final episode (the trial).
Brian Rodenborn
On 10 Feb 2004 00:52:38 -0800, the right honourable ms*****@yahoo.com
(MSG) wrote: Michel Bardiaux <mi*************@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4********************@giganews.com>... Mark Shelor wrote:
>
> OK, Sidney, I am considering it. I can certainly understand the premise
> that a group might choose to entertain ONLY those questions that can be
> resolved purely by a reading or clarification of (drum roll please) The
> Standard. But how utterly boring, and what a waste of talent. It
> reduces the newgroups participants to a mere gaggle of lawyers.
I agree 100% with you.
Mark Shelor's question was off-topic, but not for the reasons
mentioned.
To interface C and Perl, it is necessary to *call* functions. The
standard however does not define the stack size, so the behavior of
any function that calls another function is undefined, and therefore
we can not discuss it here. QED.
Yeah, sure. You can predict the behavior of function calls *if* the
stack is known to be big enough, but by the same logic, you can
predict a lot of things if some extras are known. Well, they ain't.
Not in The Standard!
So, read my lips: no...function...calls!
We can only discuss things that are happening entirely inside
"main()". Everything else ist verboten!
Heil...
MSG
Why has this thread become one of the longest in this group ?
I suspect it has to do with the phenomenon Umberto Eco describes in a
speech he held on march 10, 1981, at the celebration of the 25th
anniversary of the municipal library of Milano.
He describes two kinds of libraries
One, where you have to ask the librarian for the book you need. The
librarian then gets the book for you, while you wait behind the
counter.
The other kind is one, where you go and find the book for yourself.
While doing that, you notice the book next to the one you need. That
book also triggers your interest and you thus learn something
unexpected.
Eco says, this second library is much better.
frgr
Erik
In <vg********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes: On 12 Feb 2004 14:44:28 GMT, the right honourable Da*****@cern.ch (Dan
Pop) wrote:
In <lp********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes:
As an engineer who has worked on and contributed to standards, I can
assure you that a standard is a moving target.
As soon as standards, like ISO, are voted from draft to standard, new
work begins on the revision of it.
A standard is a snapshot, outdated when taken.
Tell this to the committee members from comp.std.c and you'll be laughed
at.
I did discuss this general phenomenon with the convenor of another ISO
standard, who fully agreed.
Which doesn't mean that it automatically applies to the C standard.
Anyone who has read comp.std.c long enough is familiar with the modus
operandi of this committee. The draft becomes "frozen" long before
being submitted for approval and only bug fixes are allowed. The final
C99 standard has been basically frozen ever since its adoption, with the
exception of a few bug fixes, published 2 years later (and another batch
of bug fixes is expected). No addendum has been issued in the meantime
and there is no such work in progress. The committee has not yet started
considering changes for the next version of the standard, all the work was
focused on bug fixes (defect reports, in the standardese lingo).
These are the facts and the text included at the beginning of this post
doesn't match them, even if it might be true for other standards, that
get outdated much faster than the C standard.
Furthermore, for the average C programmer, the C89 standard hasn't lost
any of its validity and this is the standard that is fully supported by
most of the implementations in current use today, 15 years after its
adoption. Quite remarkable for something that is supposed to be a moving
target, isn't it?
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
On 12 Feb 2004 18:35:30 GMT, the right honourable Da*****@cern.ch (Dan
Pop) wrote: In <vg********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes:
On 12 Feb 2004 14:44:28 GMT, the right honourable Da*****@cern.ch (Dan
Pop) wrote:
In <lp********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes:
As an engineer who has worked on and contributed to standards, I can
assure you that a standard is a moving target.
As soon as standards, like ISO, are voted from draft to standard, new
work begins on the revision of it.
A standard is a snapshot, outdated when taken.
Tell this to the committee members from comp.std.c and you'll be laughed
at.
I did discuss this general phenomenon with the convenor of another ISO
standard, who fully agreed.
Which doesn't mean that it automatically applies to the C standard.
Anyone who has read comp.std.c long enough is familiar with the modus
operandi of this committee. The draft becomes "frozen" long before
being submitted for approval and only bug fixes are allowed. The final
C99 standard has been basically frozen ever since its adoption, with the
exception of a few bug fixes, published 2 years later (and another batch
of bug fixes is expected). No addendum has been issued in the meantime
and there is no such work in progress. The committee has not yet started
considering changes for the next version of the standard, all the work was
focused on bug fixes (defect reports, in the standardese lingo).
These are the facts and the text included at the beginning of this post
doesn't match them, even if it might be true for other standards, that
get outdated much faster than the C standard.
Furthermore, for the average C programmer, the C89 standard hasn't lost
any of its validity and this is the standard that is fully supported by
most of the implementations in current use today, 15 years after its
adoption. Quite remarkable for something that is supposed to be a moving
target, isn't it?
hm, I can think of many, many reasons why a standard does not get
revised.
Especially in a fast moving field as ours.
frgr
Erik
"Erik" <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote in message
news:ku********************************@4ax.com... Why has this thread become one of the longest in this group ?
I suspect it has to do with the phenomenon Umberto Eco describes in a
speech he held on march 10, 1981, at the celebration of the 25th
anniversary of the municipal library of Milano.
He describes two kinds of libraries
One, where you have to ask the librarian for the book you need. The
librarian then gets the book for you, while you wait behind the
counter.
The other kind is one, where you go and find the book for yourself.
While doing that, you notice the book next to the one you need. That
book also triggers your interest and you thus learn something
unexpected.
Eco says, this second library is much better.
frgr
Erik
For what its worth, Erik, I completely agree with you. The C and C++ groups
seem to be populated by the most self-righteous people on Usenet, which I
find very sad because they are my favorite languages (out of the several
dozen I've had to use over the years). They (the people) are even worse
than the Ada and Java zealots. Not that all people how use those languages
(I'm one) are zealots, but those languages do seem to attract a lot of them.
Most other groups I frequent are very pleasant. People ask (near) off-topic
or "fringe" questions here and there and no jump on there pulpit to lecture
at them. Those groups have not digress in to chaos, nor lost sight of their
"chosen" topics as people here fear will happen.
I usually don't even bother posting anymore. I've seen to many newbies ask
pretty reasonable questions upon finding these groups, only to be attacked
by pompous, wannabe moderators who want to dictate terms to all. The "you
should lurk a few weeks before asking" being the most ridiculous. Someone
who does not frequent news groups may stumble upon them desperately seeking
help with a college or work assignment.
I don't expect it will change. Not while the "regulars" (the exalted one
who have the luxury of time to sit here all day waiting to pounce upon the
ignorant--possibly because they are in academia and don't have real jobs and
lives to worry about) feel them can and must dictate terms to the rest. Not
that all the regulars are bad either, some are pretty nice but the term
has--to me anyways--a bad connotation in this group.
Regards,
DrX
Erik wrote: So, from the viewpoint of a technical person, a programmer or a
compiler designer, often not the most politically-adept, the standard
MUST be imperfect-but-heck-it's-the-best-we-got.
So I prefer to always be critical, always questioning, always use my
own brain, as Kant suggested as a good way to live your life :-)
Indeed.
In his own words:
"Aufklaerung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten
Unmuendigkeit. Unmuendigkeit ist das Unvermoegen, sich seines
Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen."
Undoubtedly Kant would also have referred to a slavish dependence on
(drum roll please) THE STANDARD as "eine selbstverschuldete Unmuendigkeit."
Mark
Xenos <do**********@spamhate.com> scribbled the following: For what its worth, Erik, I completely agree with you. The C and C++ groups
seem to be populated by the most self-righteous people on Usenet, which I
find very sad because they are my favorite languages (out of the several
dozen I've had to use over the years). They (the people) are even worse
than the Ada and Java zealots. Not that all people how use those languages
(I'm one) are zealots, but those languages do seem to attract a lot of them.
Most other groups I frequent are very pleasant. People ask (near) off-topic
or "fringe" questions here and there and no jump on there pulpit to lecture
at them. Those groups have not digress in to chaos, nor lost sight of their
"chosen" topics as people here fear will happen.
I usually don't even bother posting anymore. I've seen to many newbies ask
pretty reasonable questions upon finding these groups, only to be attacked
by pompous, wannabe moderators who want to dictate terms to all. The "you
should lurk a few weeks before asking" being the most ridiculous. Someone
who does not frequent news groups may stumble upon them desperately seeking
help with a college or work assignment.
I don't expect it will change. Not while the "regulars" (the exalted one
who have the luxury of time to sit here all day waiting to pounce upon the
ignorant--possibly because they are in academia and don't have real jobs and
lives to worry about) feel them can and must dictate terms to the rest. Not
that all the regulars are bad either, some are pretty nice but the term
has--to me anyways--a bad connotation in this group.
You know, this is not the only C forum out there. (It's just the best
one, but then that's my opinion. I'm one of the standard-thumpers.) If
you want a forum that'll be happy to answer questions that are more
defined by hardware manufacturers than programming languages, there's
always other comp.* or alt.* newsgroups, web-based fora, and
implementation-specific mailing lists. No one's forcing you to restrict
yourselves to this particular newsgroup.
I'd prefer if this particular newsgroup kept to what it is all about :
the C language! Not C compilers, not operation system or hardware device
APIs with C linkage. Once you think of it, the matter of which IO
command to send to the parallel port to change its state (for example)
really depends on the parallel port, not the C language, even though
you send the command by calling a C function.
When filling out a loan application (printed on paper), would you think
that the rules the bank sets for a loan are a property of pen and paper?
No? Then why do you assume the same thing for APIs with C linkage and C?
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"The question of copying music from the Internet is like a two-barreled sword."
- Finnish rap artist Ezkimo
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:09:25 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote: that television program. Believe it or not, however, 95% of the population
of this planet does /not/ live in the USA, and might not be familiar with
US television culture (appalling as this may sound to those who cannot
imagine anything else).
or alternatively, somewhat of a relief.... :-)
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
In message <c0*********@cui1.lmms.lmco.com>
"Xenos" <do**********@spamhate.com> wrote:
"Erik" <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote in message
news:ku********************************@4ax.com...
Why has this thread become one of the longest in this group ?
I suspect it has to do with the phenomenon Umberto Eco describes in a
speech he held on march 10, 1981, at the celebration of the 25th
anniversary of the municipal library of Milano.
He describes two kinds of libraries
One, where you have to ask the librarian for the book you need. The
librarian then gets the book for you, while you wait behind the
counter.
The other kind is one, where you go and find the book for yourself.
While doing that, you notice the book next to the one you need. That
book also triggers your interest and you thus learn something
unexpected.
Eco says, this second library is much better.
frgr
Erik
For what its worth, Erik, I completely agree with you. The C and C++ groups
seem to be populated by the most self-righteous people on Usenet, which I
find very sad because they are my favorite languages (out of the several
dozen I've had to use over the years). They (the people) are even worse
than the Ada and Java zealots. Not that all people how use those languages
(I'm one) are zealots, but those languages do seem to attract a lot of them.
Most other groups I frequent are very pleasant. People ask (near) off-topic
or "fringe" questions here and there and no jump on there pulpit to lecture
at them. Those groups have not digress in to chaos, nor lost sight of their
"chosen" topics as people here fear will happen.
I usually don't even bother posting anymore. I've seen to many newbies ask
pretty reasonable questions upon finding these groups, only to be attacked
by pompous, wannabe moderators who want to dictate terms to all.
I've got a large amount of sympathy with this view. The flaming versus
interesting discussion ratio is extremely poor. And whenever I post a serious
question on a point of language or the standard (here or comp.std.c), I'm
lucky if I get more than 1 reply.
I'm sometimes tempted to put void main() in one of my examples just to get a
response; the regulars don't seem to have the energy left over to answer
difficult questions after all the arguments about whether to cast malloc or
not :(
Other language groups, such as comp.lang.forth have got a far better balance.
But then, I suppose that's largely because they don't feel in danger of being
swamped like comp.*.c might be due to the ubiquitousness of the language.
Maybe comp.lang.c.moderated could be loosened up; leave it up to the
moderator to determine what is on-topic enough to be posted, let him give a
reasonable amount of leeway, but have him rule that any arguments about
topicality be off-topic. Along with any other posts that just correct "void
main()" without providing any other useful/relevant informaton. Then leave
comp.lang.c full of the bickering.
--
Kevin Bracey http://www.bracey-griffith.freeserve.co.uk/
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:37:44 -0500, "Xenos"
<do**********@spamhate.com> wrote:
For what its worth, Erik, I completely agree with you. The C and C++ groups
seem to be populated by the most self-righteous people on Usenet
I see more self-rightousness on the part of the protestors in this
debate than on the part of the "establishment".
, which I
find very sad because they are my favorite languages (out of the several
dozen I've had to use over the years). They (the people) are even worse
than the Ada and Java zealots.
There's a type of zealotry here, but it isn't "language zealotry".
This particular group, from I've been able to discern (after really
only a few weeks of active participation), has a sound premise: answer
C /language/ questions, where the language is defined by the C
Standard. I seriously doubt any of the regulars here are on a mission
to, say, convert others to C/C++ from whatever else they're using. But
there does seem to be a mission to constrain the domain of this group.
The question is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Personally, I /like/ that limiting the domain; that's because it is a
large and confusing enough domain all by its lonesome, without
attempting to encompass "everything and anything folks can and do use
C for." For both the regulars and itinerant visitors to the group (I
may or may not end up falling into one of those camps) to have a shot
at reasonably common ground for discussion/debate/verification of the
topics, any larger of a domain than the one they're attempting to
maintain would be, IMO, crazy-making.
So the choice being faced seems to be to either:
a) open up the group to all the kinds of questions the protestors want
the freedom to discuss here, which would possibly (probably?) dilute
the present focus on The Language so that it would become much more
difficult to answer language questions cogently, or
b) put up with these debates, which at least can be localized (more or
less!) to specific threads and subthreads, and manually filtered out
if desired.
Not that all people how use those languages
(I'm one) are zealots, but those languages do seem to attract a lot of them.
Most other groups I frequent are very pleasant. People ask (near) off-topic
or "fringe" questions here and there and no jump on there pulpit to lecture
at them. Those groups have not digress in to chaos, nor lost sight of their
"chosen" topics as people here fear will happen.
I don't buy that /anyone/ here who responds to a post by telling the
OP they're OT is doing so because they're eager to go jump onto their
soapbox and start lecturing. On the contrary; I sense that it is
regarded as rather unpleasant "dirty work" necessary in order to
maintain the quality of the group.
I usually don't even bother posting anymore. I've seen to many newbies ask
pretty reasonable questions upon finding these groups, only to be attacked
by pompous, wannabe moderators who want to dictate terms to all. The "you
should lurk a few weeks before asking" being the most ridiculous. Someone
who does not frequent news groups may stumble upon them desperately seeking
help with a college or work assignment.
I understand what you're saying. I began by participating in the
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ group, where many of the same knowledgable
folks hang out, and where all this is a non-issue. I was then drawn
into this group by way of a cross-post or two, and began grappling
with the issue almost immediately. In some ways, it's a jungle out
there, here (one poster welcomed me to "the fray", and that seems
apt). But when I publicly questioned some of the tactics, I received
what I considered to be very level-headed, sound rationale for them.
It's all in the archives; I believe folks when they tell me the
primary goal is to teach The Language. And I think the methodology
here is indeed quite effective in doing that, when not being the
target of evisceration attempts. I can't think of any better way to do
it, in fact.
-leor
Leor Zolman
BD Software le**@bdsoft.com www.bdsoft.com -- On-Site Training in C/C++, Java, Perl & Unix
C++ users: Download BD Software's free STL Error Message
Decryptor at www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html
Kevin Bracey wrote: I've got a large amount of sympathy with this view. The flaming versus
interesting discussion ratio is extremely poor. And whenever I post a serious
question on a point of language or the standard (here or comp.std.c), I'm
lucky if I get more than 1 reply.
Please list some examples with URLs for the groups.google thread. Then
we can judge whether such a thing occured and whether the answers you
got adequately addressed the question.
Brian Rodenborn
Leor Zolman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:37:44 -0500, "Xenos"
<do**********@spamhate.com> wrote:
For what its worth, Erik, I completely agree with you. The C and C++ groups
seem to be populated by the most self-righteous people on Usenet
I see more self-rightousness on the part of the protestors in this
debate than on the part of the "establishment".
Indeed.
There's a type of zealotry here, but it isn't "language zealotry".
This particular group, from I've been able to discern (after really
only a few weeks of active participation), has a sound premise: answer
C /language/ questions, where the language is defined by the C
Standard.
Yes. I was somewhat surprised in my initial foray here to find out how
narrow the scope was. I found that out by posting an off-topic question
about editors. However, instead of copping an attitude and trying to
change the group, I apologized and did what I should have done in the
first place, lurked and read and kept my mouth shut for a while.
I seriously doubt any of the regulars here are on a mission
to, say, convert others to C/C++ from whatever else they're using. But
there does seem to be a mission to constrain the domain of this group.
The question is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Most certainly not. Many participants are knowledgable in multiple
languages and use the ones they find best suited to the problem domain.
I don't buy that /anyone/ here who responds to a post by telling the
OP they're OT is doing so because they're eager to go jump onto their
soapbox and start lecturing. On the contrary; I sense that it is
regarded as rather unpleasant "dirty work" necessary in order to
maintain the quality of the group.
Not at all, and in fact people have been striving to come up with a
standardized redirect message. We have tried to explain to Erik and the
others why language interface questions are not topical, but the
response seems to be, "I disagree!" I usually don't even bother posting anymore. I've seen to many newbies ask
pretty reasonable questions upon finding these groups, only to be attacked
by pompous, wannabe moderators who want to dictate terms to all.
I challenge this poster (Xenos) to present examples. I've issued this
challenge many times to similar outrageous allegations and had no one
present any corroboration.
Brian Rodenborn
Leor Zolman wrote:
<snip> I don't buy that /anyone/ here who responds to a post by telling the
OP they're OT is doing so because they're eager to go jump onto their
soapbox and start lecturing. On the contrary; I sense that it is
regarded as rather unpleasant "dirty work" necessary in order to
maintain the quality of the group.
Yes, that's a good way of putting it. When I was new here, I used to post
quite a lot of redirections; it was something I regarded as a chore that
people would thank me for doing, because it would save them from doing it.
Nowadays, I am thankful for those who take up the chore on /my/ behalf. It's
not a soapbox thing. It's just a job that has to be done.
--
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 For what its worth, Erik, I completely agree with you. The C and C++ groups
seem to be populated by the most self-righteous people on Usenet, which I
find very sad because they are my favorite languages (out of the several
dozen I've had to use over the years). They (the people) are even worse
than the Ada and Java zealots. Not that all people how use those languages
(I'm one) are zealots, but those languages do seem to attract a lot of them.
Most other groups I frequent are very pleasant. People ask (near) off-topic
or "fringe" questions here and there and no jump on there pulpit to lecture
at them. Those groups have not digress in to chaos, nor lost sight of their
"chosen" topics as people here fear will happen.
I usually don't even bother posting anymore. I've seen to many newbies ask
pretty reasonable questions upon finding these groups, only to be attacked
by pompous, wannabe moderators who want to dictate terms to all. The "you
should lurk a few weeks before asking" being the most ridiculous. Someone
who does not frequent news groups may stumble upon them desperately seeking
help with a college or work assignment.
I don't expect it will change. Not while the "regulars" (the exalted one
who have the luxury of time to sit here all day waiting to pounce upon the
ignorant--possibly because they are in academia and don't have real jobs and
lives to worry about) feel them can and must dictate terms to the rest. Not
that all the regulars are bad either, some are pretty nice but the term
has--to me anyways--a bad connotation in this group.
Regards,
DrX
Thank you for your lengthy reaction.
I agree with the broader lines of what you say.
However, what *I* would love to see happen, is that people do not use
words like "zealot", "pompous", "wannabe" and the sometimes
condescending "newbie" anymore.
If one uses words like that in a real-life conversation, what happens
is, that the other goes from listening mode into either defensive or
attack mode. "Firewalls" and bridges are raised immediately.
End of contact. Blood pressure rises.
If someone poses a blatant off-topic question, the neatest thingto say
is something like
"that is a good question, however you will stand a much better chance
of getting a good answer on disozer.newsgroup.c.php. In this group one
discusses .... etc."
no typing necessary, just cut and paste it from somewhere. easy...
Or just ignore it. Even less energy needed.
Calling names and barking ppl off, is counter-productive.
I mean, when you want to point out, someone used the wrong newsgroup,
you have two options:
the civilised way and the uncivilised one.
Why choose for the second ?
A rethoric question of course, because we all know the answer.
frgr
Erik
Mark Shelor <ms*****@comcast.removeme.net> wrote: Erik wrote:
So, from the viewpoint of a technical person, a programmer or a
compiler designer, often not the most politically-adept, the standard
MUST be imperfect-but-heck-it's-the-best-we-got.
So I prefer to always be critical, always questioning, always use my
own brain, as Kant suggested as a good way to live your life :-)
Indeed.
In his own words:
"Aufklaerung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten
Unmuendigkeit. Unmuendigkeit ist das Unvermoegen, sich seines
Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen."
That's a very nice, big statement for a philosopher, but it doesn't take
into account the fact that as an applied epistomologist, I have no
choice but to depend on the work of others, just as my users have no
choice but to depend on me writing solid code, not random junk that just
happens to work today.
Richard
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> spoke thus: Nowadays, I am thankful for those who take up the chore on /my/ behalf. It's
not a soapbox thing. It's just a job that has to be done.
So that means, I hope, that I'm not annoying anyone with my redirects
anymore? It's the clc equivalent of me fanning you and bringing you a
glass of wine ;)
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Richard Bos wrote: Mark Shelor <ms*****@comcast.removeme.net> wrote:
"Aufklaerung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten
Unmuendigkeit. Unmuendigkeit ist das Unvermoegen, sich seines
Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen."
That's a very nice, big statement for a philosopher, but it doesn't take
into account the fact that as an applied epistomologist, I have no
choice but to depend on the work of others, just as my users have no
choice but to depend on me writing solid code, not random junk that just
happens to work today.
Well said, Richard, though Kant's dictum would hardly contradict the
point you're making. In this highly-specialized world, we all depend on
the work of others. Kant's words merely warn against blind dependence,
born from immaturity or the inability to think for ourselves.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:09:34 GMT, the right honourable rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: Mark Shelor <ms*****@comcast.removeme.net> wrote:
Erik wrote:
> So, from the viewpoint of a technical person, a programmer or a
> compiler designer, often not the most politically-adept, the standard
> MUST be imperfect-but-heck-it's-the-best-we-got.
> So I prefer to always be critical, always questioning, always use my
> own brain, as Kant suggested as a good way to live your life :-)
Indeed.
In his own words:
"Aufklaerung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten
Unmuendigkeit. Unmuendigkeit ist das Unvermoegen, sich seines
Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen."
That's a very nice, big statement for a philosopher, but it doesn't take
into account the fact that as an applied epistomologist, I have no
choice but to depend on the work of others, just as my users have no
choice but to depend on me writing solid code, not random junk that just
happens to work today.
Richard
well.... depend.... ummmmm
you do test the end result of your work. in the development chain are
a lot of black boxes (who checks the code of the compiler ?), but at
the end of the chain there is the result, which is always checked
against reality, experience and the like.
and that is where Kant comes in.
If the result is incorrect, you would, if you had to, throw out the
whole chain of boxes, so to speak.
In that sense, you will never depend on any black box. I hope.
fr gr
Erik
ps. I think it is epistEmology...science of knowledge ? But english is
my third language...
Erik wrote: If someone poses a blatant off-topic question, the neatest thingto say
is something like
"that is a good question, however you will stand a much better chance
of getting a good answer on disozer.newsgroup.c.php. In this group one
discusses .... etc."
Please give examples of people being rude, rather than just being blunt,
to a first off-topic post.
I your search notice the ratio of people using your suggested approach
to the approach you say people here use.
Maybe I am just forgetting the rudeness, but I have the distint
impression gathered over the two years I have been here that people
usually redirect or at least just tell people that they are off-topic.
--
Thomas.
In <c0**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes: Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> spoke thus:
Nowadays, I am thankful for those who take up the chore on /my/ behalf. It's
not a soapbox thing. It's just a job that has to be done.
So that means, I hope, that I'm not annoying anyone with my redirects
anymore?
Nope: some of the redirected people might get still annoyed, with or
without good reason ;-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Mark Shelor |
last post by:
I've encountered a troublesome inconsistency in the C-language Perl
extension I've written for CPAN (Digest::SHA). The problem involves the
use of a static array within a performance-critical...
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
| |
