By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
428,706 Members | 1,105 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 428,706 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

what parallel C language does MIPS Pro C Compiler support?

P: n/a
Hi friends,
I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
have any idea of parallel C languages. I looked into few posts in this
group. I could make out that there are several languages for parallel
programming and parallel C is one of them. I need to know if this is
supported by MIPS Pro C Compiler. Or are there any other parallel C
languages that have this feature?
It would be more helpful if someone explains the differences
among mpC, paralle C, parallel C in OpenMP and MPI. To which language
does the following directives belong to.
#pragma parallel
#pragma pfor
#pragma synchronize

Thanks in advance
Ramya

Nov 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
126 Replies


P: n/a
In article <11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
ra*****@gmail.com <ra*****@gmail.com> wrote:
I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
running SGI Irix 6.5.
You should probably take this question to comp.sys.sgi.misc
This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
have any idea of parallel C languages. I looked into few posts in this
group. I could make out that there are several languages for parallel
programming and parallel C is one of them. I need to know if this is
supported by MIPS Pro C Compiler.
No, the MIPSpro compilers do not support the Parallel C language.
Or are there any other parallel C
languages that have this feature?


[OT]

Here are some SGI links for you:

"MIPSpro Auto-Parallelizing Option Programmer's Guide"

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...per/MPro_AP_PG

You probably don't want to use that, though, as it is noticable
extra cost. It's useful when you first start out, but once you see
what kind of transformations it makes to your code, it is usually
easier to put in the directives manually.
"C Language Reference Manual"

"Chapter 10. Multiprocessing Directives"
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch10.html

"Chapter 11. Multiprocessing Advanced Features"
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch11.html

In other words, you can put the directives in manually.
Includes #pragma parallel, #pragma pfor, and #pragma synchronize .
These are not from different languages: they are all pragmas
that SGI uses to mark different aspects of parallel programming.

These are supported by SGI's C, and C++. SGI's F77 (Fortran 77)
multiprocessing directive support is documented at
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/..._html/apb.html

and F77's OpenMP directive support is documented at
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch05.html

The F90 (Fortran 90) OpenMP support is documented at
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch04.html
"Message Passing Toolkit: MPI Programmer's Manual"

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...per/MPT_MPI_PM
"Message Passing Toolkit: PVM Programmer's Guide"

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...per/MPT_PVM_PM
Various SGI system manual pages:

mpconf - multiprocessing configuration
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...cat3c/mpconf.z

sysmp - multiprocessing (and realtime) controls
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...andard/sysmp.z

pthreads - introduction to POSIX threads
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...e=5%20pthreads
--
I am spammed, therefore I am.
Nov 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
ra*****@gmail.com wrote:
Hi friends,
I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
have any idea of parallel C languages.


Neither does standard C.

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

--
Peter

Nov 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:
ra*****@gmail.com wrote:
Hi friends,
I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
have any idea of parallel C languages.


Neither does standard C.

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt


That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?
Nov 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:
http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters. It has
always got along fine without one. The regular posters define what is
allowable and not allowable.

--
Simon.
Nov 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:
ra*****@gmail.com wrote:
Hi friends,
I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
have any idea of parallel C languages.
Neither does standard C.

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt


That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?


There is none.

[...]
If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


I'm not sure that it would be practical to create one and have it
accepted by -- well, by whoever would need to accept it for it to
become "official". We seem to have a general (though not universal)
consensus about what's topical.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Nov 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:43:15 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:
ra*****@gmail.com wrote:
Hi friends,
I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
have any idea of parallel C languages.
Neither does standard C.

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt


That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?


There isn't one - CLC predates the existence of the charter scheme.
The welcome message, FAQ, other regularly posted notes and topicality
guidelines provided by regulars constitute the equivalent of a
charter.
The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
This is merely the group description.
[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
You're mistaken. The nonexistence of a written consitution doesn't
prevent the group having one, any more than it prevented the UK from
having one for at least a millenium longer than CLC.
If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


No.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <ne**@ralmin.cc> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:
http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.


And also that of Standard C.

Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
precise.

My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
on-topic for csc and not clc]

which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.
It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
what is allowable and not allowable.


The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?
Nov 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
In article <sl********************@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
....
The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?


Who just wandered into a mosque and asked "Why is Christianity O/T here?" ?

Nov 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <ne**@ralmin.cc> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

And also that of Standard C.

Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
precise.

My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
on-topic for csc and not clc]

which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.

It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
what is allowable and not allowable.

The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?


I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
critics of the language, are on topic here.
Nov 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <ne**@ralmin.cc> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:

> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?

Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

And also that of Standard C.

Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
precise.

My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
on-topic for csc and not clc]

which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.

It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
what is allowable and not allowable.

The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?


I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
critics of the language, are on topic here.


I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?
Nov 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
In article <sl********************@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
I am a regular poster here and I have a different view. This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
critics of the language, are on topic here.
I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?


This is a really bad time to run an RFD. The entire RFD / CFV mechanism
is undergoing a -considerable- shakeup, and no RFDs are being
accepted for now (and possibly not for quite a number of months.)

The quick summary is that the people who administer the official
mechanisms at the moment want out and have announced their firm
commitment to resign, and are pushing for a complete rework of the
structure in order to have a viable organization to hand the reigns
over to. news.groups has the discussions.
--
Many food scientists have reported chocolate to be the single most
craved food. -- Northwestern University, 2001
Nov 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:11:36 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <ne**@ralmin.cc> wrote:

Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.
And also that of Standard C.

My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.


Its an interesting question. The answer is very simple - because that
what it is. There's no better answer, over the last 2 decades it has
generally been agreed that the purpose of CLC is to discuss the use of
standard C.
I got to thinking
about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
on-topic for csc and not clc]
Yes, there are sometimes things which do fall into that interesting
camp.
The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent.
The point you're missing is that it /does/ have a clear and agreed on
defintion. Its just not written down.

This isn't uncommon - I mentioned the constitution of the UK earlier.
We seem to have managed ok for several hundred years.
And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?


Why do you actually need to know? The point is, the topic /is/
defined. If you want to change it, feel free to try.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:42:50 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

to the best of my knowledge, Jacob is in a minority of at best one, at
worst a handful, amongst the regulars.
I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?


Not interested.

If you want to change the topic, go form your own group, stop
buggering about with ones that have got along quite happily for
decades.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
"Jordan Abel" <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote
This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
critics of the language, are on topic here.


I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?

For a long time it made perfect sense to discuss only ANSI C.
Now we've got two developments. It has become obvious that C99 is unlikely
to ever be widely implemented, which changes the status of ANSI vis a vis
the language, and parallel programming is going to become a lot more
important in the near future.

Parallel programming will probably rejuvenate C because of the problems
inherent in trying to pass objects and other high-level data structures
between processes. That is something the newsgroup will probably welcome.

However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
isn't on-topic.

Nov 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:48:18 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
<re*******@btinternet.com> wrote:

However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
isn't on-topic.


The simplest solution is to create a new group comp.lang.nonstandard-c
or something like that. If it proves useful and informative, people
will move over to it, and CLC will die away. If it proves useless, and
uninformative people will return to CLC.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:48:18 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
<re*******@btinternet.com> wrote:
However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
isn't on-topic.


The simplest solution is to create a new group comp.lang.nonstandard-c
or something like that.


Good idea, how about comp.lang.posix.c?

Bjørn

[snip]
Nov 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Bjørn Augestad wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:


The simplest solution is to create a new group
comp.lang.nonstandard-c
or something like that.


Good idea, how about comp.lang.posix.c?


I think comp.unix.programmer
would be a better name to call that one.

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

--
pete
Nov 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Malcolm wrote
(in article
<dl**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
For a long time it made perfect sense to discuss only ANSI C.
Or ISO C 90.
Now we've got two developments. It has become obvious that C99 is unlikely
to ever be widely implemented,
That's mostly because it offers almost nothing of value to
convince people to do the work to adopt it, and it directly
conflicts with widespread extensions, most notably those of gcc,
which means it was stillborn the day it was published, whether
they realized it at the time or not.
which changes the status of ANSI vis a vis
the language,
Forget about ANSI, it's not even in the picture anymore. Blame
the current state of affairs on ISO and lack of understanding of
how reality meets the dream of a standards group.
and parallel programming is going to become a lot more
important in the near future.
It already is, and has been for quite some time.
Parallel programming will probably rejuvenate C because of the problems
inherent in trying to pass objects and other high-level data structures
between processes. That is something the newsgroup will probably welcome.
Parallel programming today pretty much ignores passing between
processes (unless on different systems over the wire), and
focuses on data use (and sharing) within a single process and
multiple threads. C with extensions is one way this is done
commonly, however if that is your bag, then you should be
discussing it in a forum filled with people that focus on it
actively, such as those in comp.programming.threads.

There is no reason to drag a group into that sort of discussion
when a better one already exists. Just as there is no reason to
discuss high end graphics programming here when there are better
forums.

Just as monolithic design is bad in most software engineering,
it's also bad in Usenet group scope. I suspect that more often
than not this desire to lump everything into clc is due to not
wanting to read multiple newsgroups rather than some well
thought out rational reason.
there is no
point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
isn't on-topic.


That much is certainly true.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Nov 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
In article <fi********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
....
Not interested.

If you want to change the topic, go form your own group, stop
buggering about with ones that have got along quite happily for
decades.


Do you even come close to realizing how much like either a spoiled child
or, (worse) a religious fundie, you sound like?

Nov 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
In article <f5********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
....
The simplest solution is to create a new group comp.lang.nonstandard-c
or something like that. If it proves useful and informative, people
will move over to it, and CLC will die away. If it proves useless, and
uninformative people will return to CLC.


I think most of us see it the other way. That CLC is the logical name for
a newsgroup about discussion of C as practiced (in the real, sometimes
dirty, world, but always entertaining), while something like "clc.esoteric"
or "clc.pure" would be a reasonable thing for discussing the totally
useless but academically pure version that you seem to favor.

The point is that the name means something. People come here to discuss
real world C (imagine that - coming to a newsgroup named "comp.lang.c" to
discuss real world C) and are gobsmacked when they find out that the
natural obvious newsgroup name has been hijacked by a bunch of religious
loonies.

Nov 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes:
[...]
Parallel programming today pretty much ignores passing between
processes (unless on different systems over the wire), and
focuses on data use (and sharing) within a single process and
multiple threads. C with extensions is one way this is done
commonly, however if that is your bag, then you should be
discussing it in a forum filled with people that focus on it
actively, such as those in comp.programming.threads.


That depends on the field, I suppose. On the systems I work with,
most of the parallelism involves cooperating processes running across
hundreds or thousands of nodes, with several CPUs per node -- and
sometimes across multiple sites. But this kind of thing is already
discussed in comp.parallel, comp.parallel.mpi, comp.sys.super, and
comp.distributed.

Since the mechanisms for doing this aren't part of the C language (for
example, you can use MPI from C, from Fortran, and probably from other
languages), it doesn't usually make much sense to discuss them in
comp.lang.c.

If parallism were ever added to the C language, of course it would
become topical in comp.lang.c. If you want to help make that happen,
comp.std.c might be a good place to start. I suspect the response
will be that it's unnecessary, since the add-on libraries already
exist, but you'rew welcome to try. (That's a generic "you", not
directed at anyone in particular.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Nov 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
On 2005-11-20, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
The point you're missing is that it /does/ have a clear and agreed on
defintion. Its just not written down.


Clearly, it's either not agreed-on, or it's agreed-on but vague enough
that there are differences in interpretation. Not only has it not been
written down, it has never been subject to a vote.
Nov 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack said:
I think most of us see it the other way. That CLC is the logical name for
a newsgroup about discussion of C as practiced (in the real, sometimes
dirty, world, but always entertaining),
Right. And in the real world, C is quite often selected because of its
astonishingly high level of portability.
while something like
"clc.esoteric" or "clc.pure" would be a reasonable thing for discussing
the totally useless but academically pure version that you seem to favor.
Totally useless it may be, but it pays the mortgage for a very large number
of people.
The point is that the name means something.


Indeed it does:

comp -> computing
lang -> language
c -> C

Nothing in there about MIPS, Windows, Linux, threads, sockets, or all the
rest of it. Just C.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Nov 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote
(in article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>):
Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes:
[...]
Parallel programming today pretty much ignores passing between
processes (unless on different systems over the wire), and
focuses on data use (and sharing) within a single process and
multiple threads. C with extensions is one way this is done
commonly, however if that is your bag, then you should be
discussing it in a forum filled with people that focus on it
actively, such as those in comp.programming.threads.
That depends on the field, I suppose. On the systems I work with,
most of the parallelism involves cooperating processes running across
hundreds or thousands of nodes, with several CPUs per node -- and
sometimes across multiple sites.


Of course, fair point. I was thinking of fork() and friends
when I wrote that, and completely forgot to mention parallel in
the sense you did. Probably because I have spent a lot of time
writing pthread code in recent years, and almost zero time
writing MPI code.
But this kind of thing is already
discussed in comp.parallel, comp.parallel.mpi, comp.sys.super, and
comp.distributed.


Indeed.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Nov 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
In article <sl********************@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
The point you're missing is that it /does/ have a clear and agreed on
defintion. Its just not written down.


Clearly, it's either not agreed-on, or it's agreed-on but vague enough
that there are differences in interpretation. Not only has it not been
written down, it has never been subject to a vote.


CLC is an excellent resource but in my opinion it can benefit
from a name change -- something like comp.lang.c.iso will
reflect better its purpose and help reduce the incessant
discussions of topicality and lynching of newbies.

To address your question of how the current rules were
developed, the following allegory explains it very well.
I don't mean it in the way of disrespect to any readers
of this group. I don't remember where I got it; it's
not /my/ translation.

--
Rouben Rostamian

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "De banaan wordt bespreekbaar", cultuurverandering in
ambtelijk en politiek Groningen. door Tom Pauka en
Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh en van Ditmar, 1988)

Translated: "The banana becomes open to discussion", cultural changes
in administrative and political Groningen (city in Netherlands) by
Tom Pauka and Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh and van Ditmar, 1988)]

Take a cage with apes. In the cage we hang a banana on a string,
and put stairs under it. Before long an ape goes to the stairs
towards the banana, but as soon as it even touches the stairs,
all apes are sprayed with water. After a while the same ape or
another one makes another attempt, with the same result: all
apes are sprayed. If later another ape tries to climb the
stairs, the others will try to prevent it.

Now we take one ape from the cage and put in a new one. The new
ape sees the banana, and wants to climb the stairs. To his
horror all other apes attack him. After another attempt he
knows: if he wants to climb the stairs, he is beaten up. Then we
remove a second ape and replace it by another new one. The
newcomer goes to the stairs and gets beaten up. The previous
new ape takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

A third old ape is replaced by a third new one. The new one
makes it to the stairs and get beaten up as well. Two of the
apes who beat him, have no idea why you may not climb the stairs.

We replace the fourth old ape, and the fifth, etc. until all
apes which have been sprayed with water have been replaced.
Nevertheless, no ape ever tries to climb the stairs.

"But Sir, why not?"

"Because that's the way we do things here, lad."

Nov 21 '05 #26

P: n/a
Jordan Abel wrote:
...
My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.


Because there are (waving hands) 50 million groups around that already
discus
non-standard C. What is the point of sacrificing clc just to gain
another one of
those groups?

--
Peter

Nov 21 '05 #27

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
...
My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.


Because there are (waving hands) 50 million groups around that already
discus non-standard C. What is the point of sacrificing clc just to
gain another one of those groups?


A group for general C discussion. If you want a group for talking about
ISO C only, why not make groups comp.lang.c.iso90 comp.lang.c.iso99?

This newsgroup's charter is not in writing and has never been subject to
a vote. From what does its authority derive?
Nov 21 '05 #28

P: n/a
Jordan Abel wrote:
This newsgroup's charter is not in writing
and has never been subject to
a vote. From what does its authority derive?


Mob rule, and that's the way we like it.

--
pete
Nov 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
This newsgroup's charter is not in writing and has never been subject
to a vote. From what does its authority derive?


Mob rule, and that's the way we like it.


Mob rule requires a vote.
Nov 21 '05 #30

P: n/a
Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-11-21, pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote: Mob rule, and that's the way we like it.


Mob rule requires a vote.


Where did you get the idea
that the topic of this newsgroup
isn't exactly what you want it to be?

--
pete
Nov 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
Jordan Abel said:
On 2005-11-21, pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
This newsgroup's charter is not in writing and has never been subject
to a vote. From what does its authority derive?


Mob rule, and that's the way we like it.


Mob rule requires a vote.


Presumably this is a reference to the word "democracy". As we all know,
democracy is "one man, one vote". Well, I'm the man with the vote, and I
vote we stick to ISO C. :-)

In fact, though, the authority of this group derives from the expertise of
those who contribute to it. If you successfully change the function of the
group, it will almost certainly lead to the loss to the Usenet community of
much of that expertise.

As someone else rightly said elsethread, what is to be gained by turning
over comp.lang.c to implementation-specific issues? Are these issues not
already amply catered for by groups such as comp.unix.programmer,
comp.os.linux.development.apps, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, and so
on?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Nov 21 '05 #32

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jordan Abel said:

Presumably this is a reference to the word "democracy". As we all know,
democracy is "one man, one vote". Well, I'm the man with the vote, and I
vote we stick to ISO C. :-)
Recount! [j/k]
In fact, though, the authority of this group derives from the expertise of
those who contribute to it. If you successfully change the function of the
group, it will almost certainly lead to the loss to the Usenet community of
much of that expertise.
This comes from the still unproven presumption that a majority would
leave if people stopped whining about something that is, according to
any actual description in writing of the newsgroup, and any reasonable
interpretation of "comp.lang.c" given no pre-existing information,
on-topic, being "off-topic"
As someone else rightly said elsethread, what is to be gained by turning
over comp.lang.c to implementation-specific issues?
that's not what i said and you know it. All i'm asking is for people to
stop whining about stuff being off-topic if they have no basis for it.
Are these issues not
already amply catered for by groups such as comp.unix.programmer,
comp.os.linux.development.apps, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, and so
on?


You are so asking for a smart-ass "Correct. they're not."
Nov 21 '05 #33

P: n/a
Jordan Abel said:
On 2005-11-21, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jordan Abel said:

Presumably this is a reference to the word "democracy". As we all know,
democracy is "one man, one vote". Well, I'm the man with the vote, and I
vote we stick to ISO C. :-)
Recount! [j/k]


Okay. Recount complete. Result unchanged.
In fact, though, the authority of this group derives from the expertise
of those who contribute to it. If you successfully change the function of
the group, it will almost certainly lead to the loss to the Usenet
community of much of that expertise.


This comes from the still unproven presumption that a majority would
leave if people stopped whining about something that is, according to
any actual description in writing of the newsgroup, and any reasonable
interpretation of "comp.lang.c" given no pre-existing information,
on-topic, being "off-topic"


It's hardly an unproven presumption. Look what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they relaxed their topicality rules. The place basically fell apart.
It took a lot of work to turn it back into a useful group.
As someone else rightly said elsethread, what is to be gained by turning
over comp.lang.c to implementation-specific issues?


that's not what i said and you know it.


Well, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth; I'm merely responding to
your point about "authority", in the context of your earlier statement, "My
question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic."
All i'm asking is for people to
stop whining about stuff being off-topic if they have no basis for it.


It seems to me that the original question in this thread was a reasonable
question to ask here, and that the answer "it's off-topic" is a reasonable
answer too, albeit not as helpful as Walter Roberson's reply which
mentioned a more suitable newsgroup.
Are these issues not
already amply catered for by groups such as comp.unix.programmer,
comp.os.linux.development.apps, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, and
so on?


You are so asking for a smart-ass "Correct. they're not."


Please moderate your language; this is a family show. Thanks. If those other
groups are indeed inadequately serving the needs of their users despite
being dedicated to their platforms, how much more inadequately comp.lang.c
would serve those needs! The lack of experts in a particular group does not
imply that some other group will have more experts in the field covered by
that group. And if those other groups /are/ adequately serving the needs of
their users, the point is academic anyway.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Nov 21 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:11:36 +0000 (UTC), Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> wrote in comp.lang.c:
On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <ne**@ralmin.cc> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:
http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.


And also that of Standard C.

Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
precise.

My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
on-topic for csc and not clc]

which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.
It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
what is allowable and not allowable.


The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?


I have no proof, but your question makes me think that you are
relatively new to usenet.

I've been here for a while, and I've seen good groups destroyed by
being swamped by off-topic posts.

It was perhaps five or six years ago that comp.lang.c++ was nearly
destroyed by becoming yet another Visual C++/Windows programming
group. I know I stopped reading and participating, and quite a few of
the more knowledgeable regulars disappeared as well. It was only by
the determined effort of a group of regulars that the group was saved.

Is it really _right_? I think so, and I'll tell you why. Literally
some of the most knowledgeable experts on C and C++ in the world help
others on comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. That includes, not
infrequently, members of the language standards committees. There is
plenty of historical evidence that these are the first to leave when a
group gets polluted by too much off-topic material.

These groups are far too valuable as resources to be spoiled. For
every poster who whines that "you can't write a real world program in
standard C (or C++)", there are many more who realize that you can't
write any program at all in C or C++ without using standard C or C++,
and usually far more than you use any extensions or third party
library.

And as for what the group "should" be about, that's spelled out by the
name: "comp.lang.c" is nothing but an abbreviation for "computer
language C". And there is one and only one internationally recognized
definition of the C programming language, the ANSI/ISO/IEC standard.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Nov 21 '05 #35

P: n/a
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:52 +0100, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in comp.lang.c:
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <ne**@ralmin.cc> wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <ai***@acay.com.au> wrote:

> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?

Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

And also that of Standard C.

Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
precise.

My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
on-topic for csc and not clc]

which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.

It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
what is allowable and not allowable.

The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?


I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.


But how do you define "the C language"? By what you want it to be? By
what I want it to be? By what Microsoft wants it to be? In technical
discussions, a term without a precise definition is meaningless.

There is one internationally recognized definition of "the C
language". It has been ratified by several international standards
organizations, and the national standards bodies of most of the
nations most involved in computer programming.

So we don't have to accept your definition, or mine, we have an
objective standard definition to point to.
This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
critics of the language, are on topic here.


--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Nov 21 '05 #36

P: n/a
ro****@pc18.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes:
[...]
From: "De banaan wordt bespreekbaar", cultuurverandering in
ambtelijk en politiek Groningen. door Tom Pauka en
Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh en van Ditmar, 1988)

Translated: "The banana becomes open to discussion", cultural changes
in administrative and political Groningen (city in Netherlands) by
Tom Pauka and Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh and van Ditmar, 1988)]

Take a cage with apes. In the cage we hang a banana on a string,
and put stairs under it. Before long an ape goes to the stairs
towards the banana, but as soon as it even touches the stairs,
all apes are sprayed with water. After a while the same ape or
another one makes another attempt, with the same result: all
apes are sprayed. If later another ape tries to climb the
stairs, the others will try to prevent it.

Now we take one ape from the cage and put in a new one. The new
ape sees the banana, and wants to climb the stairs. To his
horror all other apes attack him. After another attempt he
knows: if he wants to climb the stairs, he is beaten up. Then we
remove a second ape and replace it by another new one. The
newcomer goes to the stairs and gets beaten up. The previous
new ape takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

A third old ape is replaced by a third new one. The new one
makes it to the stairs and get beaten up as well. Two of the
apes who beat him, have no idea why you may not climb the stairs.

We replace the fourth old ape, and the fifth, etc. until all
apes which have been sprayed with water have been replaced.
Nevertheless, no ape ever tries to climb the stairs.

"But Sir, why not?"

"Because that's the way we do things here, lad."


A good analogy, if you replace "the ape is beaten up" with "the ape is
told where to find another cage where he can get his bananas".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Nov 21 '05 #37

P: n/a
pete wrote:
Bjørn Augestad wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:

The simplest solution is to create a new group
comp.lang.nonstandard-c
or something like that.

Good idea, how about comp.lang.posix.c?


I think comp.unix.programmer
would be a better name to call that one.

I guess you're right, but c.u.p. has so much more than POSIX C and
threading stuff is mostly discussed in comp.programming.threads. At the
same time, the heaviest C expertise is in c.l.c. Having just one place
to discuss all parts of POSIX C would be nice, at least for me.

Bjørn
Nov 21 '05 #38

P: n/a
In article <sl********************@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:
....
Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
precise.
Actually the first message in this newsgroup dates from 22 October 1982.
But that was before the grand newsgroup renaming, and at that time the
group was called 'net.lang.c'.
The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?


In the course of time the restriction of clc to non platform-specific
uses grew in the course of time. Mainly because platform-specific
newsgroups emerged and so there was no need to have such discussions
in this newsgroup. If you look at early messages you will find that
*most* are about very platform-specific questions (Unix C). And although
most of the time it is written that only standard C is on-topic, in my
opinion that is not entirely true. In my opinion K&R C is also on-topic.
More so because in many cases that explains why things are as they are
in C, and also some of the coding people may find in programs that are
available.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Nov 21 '05 #39

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jordan Abel said:
This comes from the still unproven presumption that a majority would
leave if people stopped whining about something that is, according to
any actual description in writing of the newsgroup, and any reasonable
interpretation of "comp.lang.c" given no pre-existing information,
on-topic, being "off-topic"


It's hardly an unproven presumption. Look what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they relaxed their topicality rules. The place basically fell apart.
It took a lot of work to turn it back into a useful group.


I meant the claim that there is a majority who agree with you at all,
and who consider questions other than strict c89/c99-based ones to be
off-topic at all. Note that it's hardly unreasonable, just unproven. And
it's equally reasonable that the opposite is true.
You are so asking for a smart-ass "Correct. they're not."


Please moderate your language; this is a family show.


Sorry, i'm not used to thinking of that expression as being foul
language at all - there are regional and local differences [and, this
being a college town...]
Nov 21 '05 #40

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote:
And as for what the group "should" be about, that's spelled out by the
name: "comp.lang.c" is nothing but an abbreviation for "computer
language C". And there is one and only one internationally recognized
definition of the C programming language, the ANSI/ISO/IEC standard.


I've read, from a google archived thread on a similar issue, that there
are three, one of which was published in 1978. [the other two are
ANSI/ISO standards]

Besides - C is still C even when there are extensions.

The policy on the IRC channel ##c on freenode is that if people are
using extensions or non-standard libraries, that they should spell out
exactly what they are using. I think this is more constructive than
simply banning such questions altogether.

There's plenty of room in this newsgroup.
Nov 21 '05 #41

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nl> wrote:
In article <sl********************@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:
...
> Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
> ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
> precise.


Actually the first message in this newsgroup dates from 22 October 1982.
But that was before the grand newsgroup renaming, and at that time the
group was called 'net.lang.c'.
> The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
> is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
> only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
> decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
> one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
> has developed into a convention?


In the course of time the restriction of clc to non platform-specific
uses grew in the course of time. Mainly because platform-specific
newsgroups emerged and so there was no need to have such discussions
in this newsgroup. If you look at early messages you will find that
*most* are about very platform-specific questions (Unix C). And although
most of the time it is written that only standard C is on-topic, in my
opinion that is not entirely true. In my opinion K&R C is also on-topic.
More so because in many cases that explains why things are as they are
in C, and also some of the coding people may find in programs that are
available.


So in other words, to discuss just what the historical reasons are.

On that subject - why does time() take a pointer argument? Even in UNIX
v7 [where K&R C grew up] the underlying system call returned a value
rather than placing it in memory at a pointer. [and even there, the
library call also took a pointer argument]
Nov 21 '05 #42

P: n/a
Jordan Abel wrote:
On 2005-11-21, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jordan Abel said:
You are so asking for a smart-ass "Correct. they're not."


Please moderate your language; this is a family show.


Sorry, i'm not used to thinking of that expression as being foul
language at all - there are regional and local differences [and, this
being a college town...]


Don't worry, it wouldn't be considered rude here in Australia either,
just informal. Though, it should be spelt 'smart-arse'. :-) The
alternative 'smart-alec' strikes me as merely a euphemism, though it may
well have been the original.

--
Simon.
Nov 21 '05 #43

P: n/a
In article <sl********************@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
....
On that subject - why does time() take a pointer argument? Even in UNIX
v7 [where K&R C grew up] the underlying system call returned a value
rather than placing it in memory at a pointer. [and even there, the
library call also took a pointer argument]


Allow me to be the first to say this - and I say it from the deepness of my
heart, with all the kindness and love one has come to associate with the
helpful posts you get in this newsgroup:

Not portable. Can't discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Nov 21 '05 #44

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Kenny McCormack <ga*****@yin.interaccess.com> wrote:
In article <sl********************@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
...
On that subject - why does time() take a pointer argument? Even in UNIX
v7 [where K&R C grew up] the underlying system call returned a value
rather than placing it in memory at a pointer. [and even there, the
library call also took a pointer argument]


Allow me to be the first to say this - and I say it from the deepness of my
heart, with all the kindness and love one has come to associate with the
helpful posts you get in this newsgroup:

Not portable. Can't discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.


While unix v7 certainly isn't portable by modern standards, the fact
that time() takes a pointer argument is part of the standard, and I
believe the question of why this is the case would be on-topic even by
the strictest definition.

--
But, then, you're a troll.
Nov 21 '05 #45

P: n/a
Jordan Abel said:
On 2005-11-21, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jordan Abel said:
This comes from the still unproven presumption that a majority would
leave if people stopped whining about something that is, according to
any actual description in writing of the newsgroup, and any reasonable
interpretation of "comp.lang.c" given no pre-existing information,
on-topic, being "off-topic"


It's hardly an unproven presumption. Look what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they relaxed their topicality rules. The place basically fell apart.
It took a lot of work to turn it back into a useful group.


I meant the claim that there is a majority who agree with you at all,
and who consider questions other than strict c89/c99-based ones to be
off-topic at all. Note that it's hardly unreasonable, just unproven. And
it's equally reasonable that the opposite is true.


I don't suppose for a moment that a majority would necessarily agree with
me. I do think, however, that relaxation of topicality "rules" would have a
self-reinforcing effect. Let's call the sort of articles you want to become
topical, but which are currently-off-topic, C.O.T.:

1) clc relaxes topicality rules: COT articles become topical.
2) People here start answering COT articles. Expertise on the relevant
platforms is relatively low (compared to existing C expertise, which is
very high and on which the reputation of this group currently rests), so
the answers aren't necessarily very good.
3) People see that COT articles are now getting answers. They post their own
COT articles. These tend to relate either to Platform X or Platform Y, both
of which already have strong Usenet groups.
4) Relative density of pure C articles goes down.
5) C experts who aren't interested in Platform X or Platform Y (perhaps
because they use Platform Z exclusively, or perhaps because they have to
use all kinds of platforms, not just X or Y) start to treat clc in a much
more desultory way. The frequency of their posting begins to drop -
possibly not as a conscious decision, but simply because they have nothing
to say on Platform X or Platform Y.
6) Those who learn a lot about C from those experts but who also are good
enough to answer C questions competently, search in vain for articles from
the experts. They start to get less value from the group, so they start to
pay it less attention. Posting frequency of C articles drops absolutely as
well as (continue from Step 4).

This wouldn't happen overnight - but it would happen nonetheless. And before
very long, you'd have a completely useless group, whose most interesting
discussions would almost certainly be pointless Win32/Linux flame wars.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Nov 21 '05 #46

P: n/a
Jordan Abel said:
The policy on the IRC channel ##c on freenode
This is not IRC, freenode, or ##c.
There's plenty of room in this newsgroup.


No, not really. It already generates so much traffic that I can't read every
single article. I simply don't have time to do that. I wish I did.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Nov 21 '05 #47

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jordan Abel said:
The policy on the IRC channel ##c on freenode


This is not IRC, freenode, or ##c.


I'm aware of that, but I don't see why the same idea can't apply
There's plenty of room in this newsgroup.


No, not really. It already generates so much traffic that I can't read every
single article. I simply don't have time to do that. I wish I did.


How about subject flags - say, someone who has a question, or an answer,
relating to win32, can put [Win32] in their subject line, and someone
who doesn't want to deal with Win32 stuff can ignore it.
Nov 21 '05 #48

P: n/a
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jordan Abel wrote:
[snip]
How about subject flags - say, someone who has a question, or an answer,
relating to win32, can put [Win32] in their subject line, and someone
who doesn't want to deal with Win32 stuff can ignore it.


How about just directing all your off-topic questions to rec.food.cuisine.jewish
It will be just as on-topic as posting it here.

- --
Lew Pitcher
IT Specialist, Enterprise Data Systems,
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDgcolagVFX4UWr64RAl6vAKDZY3zwIjv7naOIG/tWFTkNHU+0qQCeKq6M
MjV4j7zFHM95LNJrU6zgp70=
=h5C6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nov 21 '05 #49

P: n/a
On 2005-11-21, Lew Pitcher <Le*********@td.com> wrote:

How about just directing all your off-topic questions to
rec.food.cuisine.jewish It will be just as on-topic as posting it
here.


This post is the first i've seen here that doesn't at least acknowledge
that there are degrees of off-topicness
Nov 21 '05 #50

126 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.