help me learn C

[abhi]

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

[ed]

On 29 Apr 2006 12:29:17 -0700
"abhi" <he**************@gmail.com> wrote:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

Have a look at this hello world program, make changes to it, make it
read some input, have a play :)

#include <stdio.h>

int main() {
printf( "Hello world\n" );
return(0);
}

--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.linuxwarez.co.uk
just another python hacker
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g :: Free DNS available

[aarklon]

well abhi

go to the site

http://accu.org/index.php/book_reviews?url=search.xqy?field=subject&term=beg inner's+c

and identify recommended C books(not C++), then try to get hard copy of
these books and start working on it

[Andrew Poelstra]

aa*****@gmail.com wrote:

well abhi

go to the site

http://accu.org/index.php/book_reviews?url=search.xqy?field=subject&term=beg inner's+c

and identify recommended C books(not C++), then try to get hard copy of
these books and start working on it

Please quote your context. There are dire consequences I've been told to
stop exaggerating if you don't.

--
"Every prime number in a series as a joke
Made all the patterns clear when I took that final toke"
- - Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>

[noridotjabi]

Help you learn C eh? That's quite the boon to ask. The C language is
extremely large containing numerous standard features and even more
nonstandard ones. One of the best C tutorials that I know of can be
found free online at:

http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/C/CE.html

It assumes that you are using some sort of *nix system however all of
the information presented is still relevant (okay nearly all of it once
you get near the end some OS specific stuff is presented but its easy
enough to ignore this).
I read most of this tutorial and it help me to lean the basics and more
intermediate concepts of C. If you want to learn the really advanced
stuff the only way to really do it is to buy a book. Some online
tutorials present advanced information however it is often OS specific.
What's wrong with book anyway?
Nori

[Joe Smith]

[snip]

Please quote your context. There are dire consequences I've been told to
stop exaggerating if you don't.

--
"Every prime number in a series as a joke
Made all the patterns clear when I took that final toke"
- - Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>

If anyone had thought the question serious, then the answer might have
appeared before your shameless, self-promoting, commercial hyperlink. To
the extent that you think primes are are joke, it's on you. Joe

[Flash Gordon]

no*********@gmail.com wrote:

Provide context please. There is no guarantee that people can see the
post you are replying to. See the bits about posting from Google here
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

Help you learn C eh? That's quite the boon to ask. The C language is
extremely large containing numerous standard features and even more
nonstandard ones. One of the best C tutorials that I know of can be
found free online at:

http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/C/CE.html
I can see a few problems just from looking at the page about basics. The
specification of the sizeof of integer types is wrong, an example
program calling printf without having first included stdlib (printf
*required* a prototype in scope because it takes a variable number of
parameters), it uses implicit int in examples which is a bad idea.
It assumes that you are using some sort of *nix system however all of
the information presented is still relevant (okay nearly all of it once
you get near the end some OS specific stuff is presented but its easy
enough to ignore this).
A lot of the information seems to be incorrect.
I read most of this tutorial and it help me to lean the basics and more
intermediate concepts of C.
In that case you will probably have to unlearn a number of things.
If you want to learn the really advanced
stuff the only way to really do it is to buy a book. Some online
tutorials present advanced information however it is often OS specific.
What's wrong with book anyway?

I would recommend reading the comp.lang.c FAQ and buying a copy of K&R2
(see the bibliography of the comp.lang.c FAQ).
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[Chris Hills]

In article <11**********************@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups .com>,
no*********@gmail.com <no*********@gmail.com> writes

Help you learn C eh? That's quite the boon to ask.

I can help you to use Usenet.

1 don't use the broken google interface to Usenet.

2 if you really muse use the broken google interface then set the reply
to quote the message you are replying to otherwise the vast majority of
Usenet users who use real newsreaders can not see what the hell you are
replying to.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

abhi said:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

*THE* C book is:

The C Programming Language, 2nd Ed. Kernighan & Ritchie. Prentice Hall,
1988. ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), or 0-13-110370-9 (hardback).
http://c-faq.com/resources/index.html should be your first stop on the Net.
I hope you will also find this page useful:

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php

It lists good books, Web tutorials, and other C resources that you should
find helpful in your quest to learn 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)

[Chris Hills]

In article <L5******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

abhi said:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

*THE* C book is:

The C Programming Language, 2nd Ed. Kernighan & Ritchie. Prentice Hall,
1988. ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), or 0-13-110370-9 (hardback).

It is over 18 years old now. The language has moved on a long way since
then. The current C standard is about twice the size of the 1990 version

Also K&R is a language definition Much like a dictionary. Yiu do not use
a dictionary to learn to write novels or business reports.

Try the book review section at http://www.accu.org
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[ais523]

abhi wrote:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

If you want to learn C, a better newsgroup to try might be
<news:alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++>.

[pete]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <L5******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

abhi said:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

*THE* C book is:

The C Programming Language,
2nd Ed. Kernighan & Ritchie. Prentice Hall,
1988. ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), or 0-13-110370-9 (hardback).

It is over 18 years old now.
The language has moved on a long way since
then.
The current C standard is about twice the size of the 1990 version

Also K&R is a language definition Much like a dictionary.
Yiu do not use
a dictionary to learn to write novels or business reports.

K&R2 is not a definition of the language, but is a tutorial.

"This book is meant to help the reader learn how to program in C.
It contains a tutorial introduction to get new users started as soon
as possible."

The C standard is the definition of the language,
but is not a tutorial.

--
pete

[Chris Hills]

In article <11**********************@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
ais523 <ai****@bham.ac.uk> writes

abhi wrote:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

If you want to learn C, a better newsgroup to try might be
<news:alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++>.

That looks dubious.... The OP wanted to learn C not C-C++ is it similar
to C/C++?

when will people learn that C and C++ are separate languages.

The root of C++ is C90.

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

C++ as also evolved and moved on from it's C90 root in a different
direction.

Even things that have identical syntax in a c and C++ may not behave the
same depending on if you use a C90, C99 or C++ compiler.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <44***********@mindspring.com>, pete <pf*****@mindspring.com>
writes

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <L5******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

>abhi said:
>
>> hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C
>
>*THE* C book is:
>
> The C Programming Language,
> 2nd Ed. Kernighan & Ritchie. Prentice Hall,
> 1988. ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), or 0-13-110370-9 (hardback).
>

It is over 18 years old now.
The language has moved on a long way since
then.
The current C standard is about twice the size of the 1990 version

Also K&R is a language definition Much like a dictionary.
Yiu do not use
a dictionary to learn to write novels or business reports.

K&R2 is not a definition of the language, but is a tutorial.

Then it is a tutorial for a language of two decades ago that has been
greatly evolved since then.

Would you recommend someone looks at a book on MSC V 1 to learn current
MS VC?

Whilst many here did use K&R (1 and 2) to learn C when it did accurately
reflect the language it was a good book. I have a copy. However these
days you are far better getting a more modern book that addresses the
area you are programming in.

C on a PC is very different to C for an 8 or 16 bit MCU and whilst much
of C is portable the way you use it will depend on the platform and the
sort of application you are building. EG in many areas printf should
not be used.

There is not one single answer as to the best book to use to learn C.
Else you learn a ancient vanilla version of C that is not used in
practice.

That said there are many far worse books on C that are out there.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <L5******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

abhi said:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C
*THE* C book is:

The C Programming Language, 2nd Ed. Kernighan & Ritchie. Prentice Hall,
1988. ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), or 0-13-110370-9 (hardback).

It is over 18 years old now. The language has moved on a long way since
then. The current C standard is about twice the size of the 1990 version

The current C standard, though, doesn't add a great number of significant
changes to the language that K&R2 describes. A great many of the additions
in C99 were to do with relatively esoteric mathematical operations that few
people care about. There are a few minor additions (BCPL comment syntax,
VLAs, compound literals, and the like), but these are of little moment. In
any case, some of these features are not supported (or not supported in a
conforming manner) by mainstream compilers.

Furthermore, even if you disagree that those features are relatively minor,
K&R2 remains a well-written introduction to the "core" of the language.
Also K&R is a language definition Much like a dictionary. Yiu do not use
a dictionary to learn to write novels or business reports.
Firstly, you appear to be ignoring the first seven chapters of the book (for
we will lay aside the eighth as being off-topic). Secondly, to take your
"novel" analogy, K&R2's purpose is not to teach programming, but to teach C
itself. It achieves this limited goal extremely well.
Try the book review section at http://www.accu.org

Well, I tried. I found an advertisement for movie reviews; another for "the
place to watch cinema and film reviews on your PC and shop online"; one for
MARK LOGIC, whatever that is; another for Amazon; and one for Blackwells.

When I used their search facility to look for "C", the first hits were: The
Complete C++ Training Course, Standard C++ IOStreams and Locales;
Exceptional C++; Borland C++ Builder 3 for Dummies; and Multi-Paradigm
Design for C++.

In fact, there were no C books in the first ten hits in the list. I didn't
look further. The average length of the reviews for the first ten books was
2.2 lines, or 19.9 words if you prefer.

It is possible that longer, more relevant reviews of C books are available
if you are prepared to register for the site, of course, but even if that
is true, it is not readily apparent from the material presented to those
who are /not/ registered, so there is little incentive to register. There
is also no indication of how much (if anything) it costs to register.

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

--
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)

[Buck Rogers]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:10:59 +0800, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk>
wrote:

I would recommend reading the comp.lang.c FAQ and buying a copy of K&R2
(see the bibliography of the comp.lang.c FAQ).

K&R2 is NOT a book for beginners.

[Chris Hills]

In article <pM********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

In article <L5******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

abhi said:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C

*THE* C book is:

The C Programming Language, 2nd Ed. Kernighan & Ritchie. Prentice Hall,
1988. ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), or 0-13-110370-9 (hardback).

It is over 18 years old now. The language has moved on a long way since
then. The current C standard is about twice the size of the 1990 version

The current C standard, though, doesn't add a great number of significant
changes to the language that K&R2 describes. A great many of the additions
in C99 were to do with relatively esoteric mathematical operations that few
people care about. There are a few minor additions (BCPL comment syntax,
VLAs, compound literals, and the like), but these are of little moment. In
any case, some of these features are not supported (or not supported in a
conforming manner) by mainstream compilers.

Furthermore, even if you disagree that those features are relatively minor,
K&R2 remains a well-written introduction to the "core" of the language.

Also K&R is a language definition Much like a dictionary. Yiu do not use
a dictionary to learn to write novels or business reports.

Firstly, you appear to be ignoring the first seven chapters of the book (for
we will lay aside the eighth as being off-topic). Secondly, to take your
"novel" analogy, K&R2's purpose is not to teach programming, but to teach C
itself. It achieves this limited goal extremely well.

Try the book review section at http://www.accu.org

Well, I tried. I found an advertisement for movie reviews; another for "the
place to watch cinema and film reviews on your PC and shop online"; one for
MARK LOGIC, whatever that is; another for Amazon; and one for Blackwells.

Try

http://accu.org/index.php/book_revie...d=subject&term
=beginner's+c

Ie do a subject search.

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

Yes... I am not impressed with the new interface.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[osmium]

"Richard Heathfield" writes:

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

That's impossible.

[CBFalconer]

Buck Rogers wrote:

Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

I would recommend reading the comp.lang.c FAQ and buying a copy
of K&R2 (see the bibliography of the comp.lang.c FAQ).

K&R2 is NOT a book for beginners.

On the contrary, it is ideally organized for beginners at C.
However it is probably not useful for those who have trouble with
"Dick and Jane, see Spot run".

--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad
morals. We now know that it is bad economics" - FDR

[Chris Hills]

In article <4b*************@individual.net>, osmium
<r1********@comcast.net> writes

"Richard Heathfield" writes:

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

That's impossible.

Why?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <pM********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

Try the book review section at http://www.accu.org

Well, I tried. I found an advertisement for movie reviews; another for
"the place to watch cinema and film reviews on your PC and shop online";
one for MARK LOGIC, whatever that is; another for Amazon; and one for
Blackwells.

Try

http://accu.org/index.php/book_revie...d=subject&term
=beginner's+c

Ie do a subject search.

Yeah, that's how I got my first set of stats. Here's my next set, this time
using the search terms: "beginner's C" (less the quotes).

First five hits - C++ again. Bzzzt.

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

Yes... I am not impressed with the new interface.

In fact, it sucks, doesn't it? I no longer see any reason to recommend the
site. Perhaps one of the ACCU folks would like to comment?

--
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)

[osmium]

"Chris Hills" writes:

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

That's impossible.

Why?

The claimed usefulness was in the book reviews. The reviews are, for the
most part worthless or less than worthless. A good book getting a bad
review meets my meaning of less than useless.The vast majority of reviews
are by one man, they are not by any stretch of the imagination "peer
reviews". I am convinced that this man wears a green eyeshade, day and
night, and his hobby is counting beans.He has an obsession with
standardization and if there is some minor standards problem in a book the
book will most likely gets a thumbs down, even for one minor infraction.
The reviews for someone new to programming are unintelligible garbage full
of special jargon no sane "civilian" could possibly make any sense out of.
I have seen him ignore something Stroustrup, for example, says and criticize
other authors for doing the same damn thing. The reviewer feels it is his
bounden duty to say something bad about almost every book. A few chosen
authors may escape this crtiicism but it is a rarity. I did not agree with
the reviews given to books I considered the best available at the time. I
would be the first to agree that there area a huge number of bad books on
C++, I have shelves full of them. But there *are* good books that didn't
make the cut at ACCU.

I am reminded of Consumer Reports that had a fetish for leakage current in
appliances. If there were one pico-amp of leakage, the appliance was
rejected out of hand as absolutely unacceptable. Ignore the fact the it had
a great many good properties. Replace "leakage current" with "standards" and
you have a good idea of where I am coming from. Clarity of expression is at
least as important as to whether files that have names such as sdtdio.are
indeed files or might be something other than files. That's an actual
example from memory. Is this really a suitable way to use up five or ten
percent of the space allocated to a two paragraph review? Or is to show off
how incredibly well informed their humble reviewer is?

The reviews are too brief - a paragraph or two - to be very useful even if
these problems were resolved. What little space there is is often wasted
lecturing the author on how the book should have been written. Review the
Gad damned book!! A review is not a place to discuss the philosophy of
writing books.

IIRC Richard Heathfield has or had a nice list of books.

A person is much better off getting names of some candidate books and
looking at the reviews on Amazon. They are, indeed, peer reviews. If you
are a beginner, your peers are people that are beginners. One hundred bad
reviews are better than one bad review. If that isn't the law of large
numbers, it should be. . Not one review by someone who has been into
computers since the IBM 360 and who has totally forgotten the difficulties
of learning to program. And can, himself, readily spot the difference
between a declaration and a definition, and a parameter and an argument,
and can say "pass by value" without feeling foolish, and on and on and on.

[Herbert Rosenau]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:18:02 UTC, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

In article <11**********************@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
ais523 <ai****@bham.ac.uk> writes

abhi wrote:

hi everybody am new to this group and help me to learn C
If you want to learn C, a better newsgroup to try might be
<news:alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++>.

That looks dubious.... The OP wanted to learn C not C-C++ is it similar
to C/C++?

No. The group knows very well that C and C++ are different languages
and will handle both. The regulars therein are interested to declare
the difference between C and C++ and interested in to advice anybody
the right way. As the group is designed to help beginners in both
languages you should NOT try to mixup both or you may get shorthand
plonked out of sight when you proves you arre unable to learn. But
when you are ready to learn you gets any help you may ever need.
when will people learn that C and C++ are separate languages.

Never ever - except they are starting in comp.lang.learn.c-c++.
There is not enough traffic in that group to separate its topics into
2 different groups.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!

[Herbert Rosenau]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:17:20 UTC, "Buck Rogers" <wh*@cares.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:10:59 +0800, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk>
wrote:

I would recommend reading the comp.lang.c FAQ and buying a copy of K&R2
(see the bibliography of the comp.lang.c FAQ).

K&R2 is NOT a book for beginners.

Right, it is not a book for beginners in programming.
Wrong. it is a book for beginners in programming in C with good
practice in other programming languages.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!

[Ian Collins]

Herbert Rosenau wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:17:20 UTC, "Buck Rogers" <wh*@cares.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:10:59 +0800, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk>
wrote:

I would recommend reading the comp.lang.c FAQ and buying a copy of K&R2
(see the bibliography of the comp.lang.c FAQ).

K&R2 is NOT a book for beginners.

Right, it is not a book for beginners in programming.
Wrong. it is a book for beginners in programming in C with good
practice in other programming languages.

It worked for me, C was my first programming language and I learned it
with K&R and "learn C" which followed the examples in the book on a VAX.

--
Ian Collins.

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

When I used their search facility to look for "C", the first hits
were: The Complete C++ Training Course, Standard C++ IOStreams and
Locales; Exceptional C++; Borland C++ Builder 3 for Dummies; and
Multi-Paradigm Design for C++.
Yes, they seem to have gone to a Google-style search system, which
ignores the non-alphanumeric characters. Extremely disappointing.
ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

Yes. I think they fixed a few problems, one was that their own canned
searches were failing due to escaped characters in the search string,
like \' and such. So their one-click for Beginner's C turned up nothing
because the actual search string was "beginner\'s C".

I also couldn't find any feedback link to even register complaints
about it.


Brian

[Chris Hills]

In article <3O********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

In article <pM********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

Try the book review section at http://www.accu.org

Well, I tried. I found an advertisement for movie reviews; another for
"the place to watch cinema and film reviews on your PC and shop online";
one for MARK LOGIC, whatever that is; another for Amazon; and one for
Blackwells.
Try

http://accu.org/index.php/book_revie...d=subject&term
=beginner's+c

Ie do a subject search.

Yeah, that's how I got my first set of stats. Here's my next set, this time
using the search terms: "beginner's C" (less the quotes).

First five hits - C++ again. Bzzzt.

:-(

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

Yes... I am not impressed with the new interface.

In fact, it sucks, doesn't it?

Must admit I am not impressed. I will probably move my reviews off to my
own web site.

The interface is nowhere near as good as it was.
I no longer see any reason to recommend the
site.
I tend to agree.
Perhaps one of the ACCU folks would like to comment?

I passed your previous comments on to the relevant person and I will see
what comes back.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <3O********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Perhaps one of the ACCU folks would like to comment?

I passed your previous comments on to the relevant person and I will see
what comes back.

Presumably you mean Francis. Whilst I have a great deal of respect for him,
I am not convinced that he is the keenest C advocate in the world. (And I
suspect he would be the first to agree!) So there seems little point in
asking him to improve the ability of the site to root out reviews of C
books.

Having said that, he may well be able to do something about the other
problems I mentioned.

--
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)

[Chris Hills]

In article <wr******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

In article <3O********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Perhaps one of the ACCU folks would like to comment?
I passed your previous comments on to the relevant person and I will see
what comes back.

Presumably you mean Francis.

Don't be silly!
So there seems little point in
asking him to improve the ability of the site to root out reviews of C
books.

FG is not involved at that level and has not been for a while.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <wr******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

I passed your previous comments on to the relevant person and I will see
what comes back.

Presumably you mean Francis.

Don't be silly!

Huh? Oh, okay, maybe I'm ...

So there seems little point in
asking him to improve the ability of the site to root out reviews of C
books.

FG is not involved at that level and has not been for a while.

....out of touch, it seems!

Fair enough - well, I'll look forward to any feedback that ACCU cares to
provide here.

--
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)

[Chris Hills]

In article <4b*************@individual.net>, osmium
<r1********@comcast.net> writes

"Chris Hills" writes:

ACCU's usefulness appears to have taken a dive.

That's impossible.
Why?

Thanks for your comments. I will pass them on to the ACCU as I think
they need to think about the new interface and other things in general.
I think the new interface is not as good as the old one.

Also your review of the reviews seems reasoned and not just a rant.
The claimed usefulness was in the book reviews. The reviews are, for the
most part worthless or less than worthless.
They are as good, or bad as any other review. Though on the whole
reviews were done by someone actually reading/using the book. Most other
reviews are done by an editor skimming the book or just reading the
cover notes. Although the ACCU editor had to do that for the books that
were not picked up by other reviewers.

BTW I have had evidence that Amazon book reviews can be manipulated.
Also you have no idea who the reviewer is. In one case a lecturer (in
the US) emailed his whole class suggesting that they should put good
reviews (only) on Amazon for his book. The email escaped :-)

You also have no idea who the reviewer is. All the Accu reviews are done
by a names ACCU member. a member listed in the members hand book so we
all know where they live and their contact details. So it is not
anonymous.

A good book getting a bad
review meets my meaning of less than useless.
That is a good book in *YOUR* opinion. The good thing about the ACCU
reviews is (was?) that the appeared in the ACCU magazines before they
went on the web and if people disagreed comments could be made. SO the
book was reviewed by a named person and the review was peer reviewed.
Which is better than most reviews.

I have seen a more than one review challenged, and changed before it
went on the web. The ACCU tended to listen to other users rather than
authors complaints. US authors were particularly bad at complaining at
less than complimentary reviews.
The vast majority of reviews
are by one man, they are not by any stretch of the imagination "peer
reviews". I am convinced that this man wears a green eyeshade, day and
night, and his hobby is counting beans.He has an obsession with
standardization and if there is some minor standards problem in a book the
book will most likely gets a thumbs down, even for one minor infraction.
:-)
If you mean who I think you mean that person is not qualified in SW
development and has never worked in Sw development professionally and
his hobby (obsession) is standards so I would have to agree with you
there.

Whilst he has done a lot of the reviews, mainly books no one else wanted
to review to be fair, there are a lot of other reviewers.
The reviews for someone new to programming are unintelligible garbage full
of special jargon no sane "civilian" could possibly make any sense out of.
Some times people like to appear clever by using jargon. It makes them
look like an Expert
I have seen him ignore something Stroustrup, for example, says and criticize
other authors for doing the same damn thing.
Hmmmm..... This is the nature of reviews to some extent, we all have our
heros but I think you have a valid point.

The reviewer feels it is his
bounden duty to say something bad about almost every book.
I must admit some years ago I did go back and re-look at a batch of my
book reviews as I thought I was heading in a downward spiral. However
there are periods where you do seem to get nothing but mediocre books.
The problem is that it is easier and cheaper to produce a book these
days than it was. I think that on average there are more mediocre to
poor out there these days than there were.

Though as you say some like to nit pick to show they are a guru. It can
get obsessive.
A few chosen
authors may escape this crtiicism but it is a rarity. I did not agree with
the reviews given to books I considered the best available at the time. I
would be the first to agree that there area a huge number of bad books on
C++, I have shelves full of them.
As AFAICS The reviewer you are referring has never worked as a
programmer or in any sw engineering environment so he may have different
views to you (or the rest of us) which are more based on the
theoretical, IE standards based, than actual real world software
engineering.
But there *are* good books that didn't
make the cut at ACCU.
The ACCU can, like any other magazine, only publish books given to it
for review. I used to send in any other books that came my way other
than those that were on the ACCU list. Yes, I have been an ACCU book
reviewer off and on for over a decade. Though AFAIK I am not the person
you were referring to previously. (If I am please let me know)

I am reminded of Consumer Reports that had a fetish for leakage current in
appliances. If there were one pico-amp of leakage, the appliance was
rejected out of hand as absolutely unacceptable. Ignore the fact the it had
a great many good properties. Replace "leakage current" with "standards" and
you have a good idea of where I am coming from. Clarity of expression is at
least as important as to whether files that have names such as sdtdio.are
indeed files or might be something other than files. That's an actual
example from memory. Is this really a suitable way to use up five or ten
percent of the space allocated to a two paragraph review? Or is to show off
how incredibly well informed their humble reviewer is?
I have to agree with you here.
The reviews are too brief - a paragraph or two - to be very useful even if
these problems were resolved.
This is historical. In the beginning all reviews were printed in the
ACCU magazines. They had to be short. Then they got put on the web as
well as the magazines. Now I would hope that reviewers do a long web
version and attach a short form version for print.
What little space there is is often wasted
lecturing the author on how the book should have been written. Review the
Gad damned book!! A review is not a place to discuss the philosophy of
writing books.
I agree completely. Some reviewers seem to think they are the star of
the show.
IIRC Richard Heathfield has or had a nice list of books.
DO you have a link?

A person is much better off getting names of some candidate books and
looking at the reviews on Amazon.
I disagree.

They are, indeed, peer reviews. If you are a beginner, your peers are
people that are beginners.
They are reviewed by anonymous people and no one else checks the review.
Also the system is open to abuse. I have documented evidence of at least
one abuse and other evidence of more.
One hundred bad
reviews are better than one bad review. If that isn't the law of large
numbers, it should be. .
Possibly. It depends on the reviewer(s)
Not one review by someone who has been into
computers since the IBM 360 and who has totally forgotten the difficulties
of learning to program. And can, himself, readily spot the difference
between a declaration and a definition, and a parameter and an argument,
and can say "pass by value" without feeling foolish, and on and on and on.

I think the person you referred to previously has no real computing
experience. Other reviewers have.

The idea in the ACCU system was to let beginners select the beginners
books. the problem there is beginners do not always know where they are
being given bad information. It is difficult to get a good review of a
beginners book by some one who can se it as a beginenr but also knows
the problems a beginner may not.

However, no matter how good or bad the reviews the ACCU web site is not
as good as it was.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

BTW I have had evidence that Amazon book reviews can be manipulated.
I think it's fair to say that nobody here is promoting Amazon book reviews -
especially introductory works - as being even remotely significant. About
the most useful - er, correction, the least useless - thing they have to
say is whether the book is readable. By their very nature, introductory
works are read primarily by beginners.

<snip>

IIRC Richard Heathfield has or had a nice list of books.

DO you have a link?

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php lists over a dozen C
books that fall into at least one of the following categories:

* I have personally read the book, and consider it worth the money;
* I have given the book a quick lookover in a bookshop and not been
disgusted by it;
* I have seen the book recommended by people in clc whose opinion I
respect.

(Declaration of interest: the list includes "C Unleashed", which was written
by myself, Lawrence Kirby, Steve Summit, Peter Seebach, Ben Pfaff, Dann
Corbit, and a number of other people, many of whom will be familiar to
long-time clc-ers.)

BTW Whatever happened to Dann?

A person is much better off getting names of some candidate books and
looking at the reviews on Amazon.

I disagree.

So do I. (That is, I agree with you that it's a bad idea - AFAIK Amazon
reviewers are not subject to any kind of peer review or quality control.)

They are, indeed, peer reviews. If you are a beginner, your peers are
people that are beginners.

They are reviewed by anonymous people and no one else checks the review.
Also the system is open to abuse. I have documented evidence of at least
one abuse and other evidence of more.

Um, quite. I have an example, too. This newsgroup, however, is probably not
the place to go into details about it.

--
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)

[Chris Hills]

In article <xe******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

IIRC Richard Heathfield has or had a nice list of books.

DO you have a link?

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php lists over a dozen C
books that fall into at least one of the following categories:

* I have personally read the book, and consider it worth the money;
* I have given the book a quick lookover in a bookshop and not been
disgusted by it;
* I have seen the book recommended by people in clc whose opinion I
respect.

Re Amazon:-

They are reviewed by anonymous people and no one else checks the review.
Also the system is open to abuse. I have documented evidence of at least
one abuse and other evidence of more.

Um, quite. I have an example, too. This newsgroup, however, is probably not
the place to go into details about it.

I agree. Which is why I did not go into details. However this is not any
criticism of Amazon per say. I buy books from them.

It is a shame that the ACCU seems to be in decline though. Their review
collection (with the caveats discussed previously) was one of the
better collections.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Herbert Rosenau]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:34:03 UTC, Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Right, it is not a book for beginners in programming.
Wrong. it is a book for beginners in programming in C with good
practice in other programming languages.

It worked for me, C was my first programming language and I learned it
with K&R and "learn C" which followed the examples in the book on a VAX.

You had assembler praxis, had you? So you had already learned how to
program and only to learn how to program in C.

I don't think you had not either
- a teacher who had teached what is NOT in K&R
- some praxis is programming in assembly or basic.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!

[Ian Collins]

Herbert Rosenau wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:34:03 UTC, Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Right, it is not a book for beginners in programming.
Wrong. it is a book for beginners in programming in C with good
practice in other programming languages.

It worked for me, C was my first programming language and I learned it
with K&R and "learn C" which followed the examples in the book on a VAX.

You had assembler praxis, had you? So you had already learned how to
program and only to learn how to program in C.

I don't think you had not either
- a teacher who had teached what is NOT in K&R

No, just the VAX. I wonder if learn C still exists?
- some praxis is programming in assembly or basic.

A wee bit of BASIC.

--
Ian Collins.

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:

Chris Hills said:

[...]

http://accu.org/index.php/book_revie...d=subject&term
=beginner's+c

Ie do a subject search.

Yeah, that's how I got my first set of stats. Here's my next set, this time
using the search terms: "beginner's C" (less the quotes).

First five hits - C++ again. Bzzzt.

What's needed is a search by whole words, treating "C++" as a single
word.

--
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.

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

--
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.

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

comp.std.c discusses the standard as a document, things like proposed
revisions or discussions of the intent behind the wording, and whether
the wording actually captures that intent. In other words, it
emphasizes the C standard rather than standard C.

comp.lang.c discusses the language defined by the standard.

C "as actually used" includes a lot of system-specific stuff that many
of us here know nothing about. I know the C standard pretty well; I
know very little about Windows-specific programming. There are a
number of newsgroups where the people who know about Windows
programming hang out.

comp.lang.c as it exists today is unique and valuable. I for one
would like to keep it that way.

--
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.

[Alan L Brown]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

Alan

[Chris Hills]

In article <44***********************@news.optusnet.com.au> , Alan L
Brown <i.******@optus.com> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

With over 20 years of SW engineering behind me I have yet to write an ap
for any of these OS. The point is that C is used in many places.
Discussing it here will help people understand the differences and the
parts that are the same.

C.l.c is just that somewhere to discuss C . It does not say standard C
(there is a comp.std.c) If you want to discuss standard C got to
comp.std.c C standards development happens somewhere else on the WG14
and other NGs.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[raajagopal.v]

dear abhi if u feel any difficult in reading the books of foreign
authors other than india its very difficult to grab th facts, as my
suggestions go for ansi c by E.Balagurusamy

[Default User]

raajagopal.v wrote:

dear abhi if u feel any difficult in reading the books of foreign
authors other than india its very difficult to grab th facts, as my
suggestions go for ansi c by E.Balagurusamy

Please help us to understand your messages.

1. Don't use odd abreviations like "u".

2. Do use capital letters where appropriate.

3. Quote the previous message. See below for details.

Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

C.l.c is just that somewhere to discuss C . It does not say standard C
(there is a comp.std.c) If you want to discuss standard C got to
comp.std.c C standards development happens somewhere else on the WG14
and other NGs.

But that's not what the newsgroups are actually used for.

For purposes of this newsgroup, "C" and "standard C" are very nearly
synonymous. C is the language defined by the C standard; that's what
the standard is for.

comp.std.c is for discussion *of the standard*, not of the language
defined by the standard. The actual development of the standard
doesn't happen in the newsgroup (any more than actual development of C
code happens (much) in comp.lang.c; comp.std.c is a forum for
discussion of the C standard.

What kinds of things would you like to discuss here in comp.lang.c
that are outside the scope of the standard?

--
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.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 2 May 2006 14:38:09 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

C.l.c is just that somewhere to discuss C . It does not say standard C
(there is a comp.std.c)

unfortunately you're mistaken about the purpose of the groups.

comp.std.c is for discussion of the Standard itself.
comp.lang.c is for discussion of the language as defined by teh
standard.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Joe Wright]

Alan L Brown wrote:

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

Alan

The C discussed here is not C++ and doesn't know anything about Windows,
Mac OS, Linux or VMS or whatever.

We would like to discuss the language and its application to portable
programs, not its implementation on the DeathStation series.

What is it about this concept that is so hard to understand?

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Chris Hills]

In article <Wt********************@comcast.com>, Joe Wright
<jo********@comcast.net> writes

Alan L Brown wrote:

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
[...]

> Since 1990 C has moved on and evolved to C99

Alas, many C implementations have not.

They are half way between.

It depends if you want to discuss reality or a standard that is not
actually used.

I think it is time to broaden c.l.c to discuss C as actually used and
not just standard c. you can do that in c.s.c

Surely the whole purpose of having a "standard" C [or C++] is to enable
portability across various systems. comp.lang.c allows us to discuss
problems in the language no matter what system we are using individually.

What does "as actually used" mean - as actually used in Windows,
actually in Mac OS X, actually under Linux??? "Reality" is different
for different users.

Alan

The C discussed here is not C++ and doesn't know anything about Windows,
Mac OS, Linux or VMS or whatever.

We would like to discuss the language and its application to portable
programs, not its implementation on the DeathStation series.

No WE would not. You do. That is the point. This discussion is taking
place because whilst some people want to limit this NG others want to
broaden it. Or in their veiw not artificially restrict it.
What is it about this concept that is so hard to understand?

Precisely. What is it about the counter argument you find so hard to
understand?

Many people here think that some of you are artificially restricting the
discussions to a narrow topic.

Over time all things evolve or die. Even Newsgroups.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

Many people here think that some of you are artificially restricting the
discussions to a narrow topic.
Yes, you're right - we are. Take a look at what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they stopped artificially restricting the discussions to a narrow
topic. The newsgroup took years to recover after almost suffocating from a
plethora of questions that would have been better handled in
implementation-specific newsgroups. That's what implementation-specific
newsgroups are *for*.

If we go the same way as comp.lang.c++ went, we will almost certainly have
much the same experience, and it's likely that much of the C expertise to
be found here will vanish from comp.lang.c, some of it never to return. Is
that what we want?
Over time all things evolve or die. Even Newsgroups.

I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

--
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)

[Chris Hills]

In article <nr********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

Chris Hills said:

Many people here think that some of you are artificially restricting the
discussions to a narrow topic.

Yes, you're right - we are. Take a look at what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they stopped artificially restricting the discussions to a narrow
topic. The newsgroup took years to recover after almost suffocating from a
plethora of questions that would have been better handled in
implementation-specific newsgroups. That's what implementation-specific
newsgroups are *for*.

If we go the same way as comp.lang.c++ went, we will almost certainly have
much the same experience, and it's likely that much of the C expertise to
be found here will vanish from comp.lang.c, some of it never to return. Is
that what we want?

Over time all things evolve or die. Even Newsgroups.

I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

The eventually you will die.... :-)

Personally I have decided to be immortal and so far so good :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Nick Keighley]

no*********@gmail.com wrote:

Help you learn C eh? That's quite the boon to ask. The C language is
extremely large
??

C is generally viewed as a *small* language!

containing numerous standard features and even more
nonstandard ones.

by definition C contains no nonstandard features! If its non-standard
then it
isn't part of C...

<snip>

--
Nick Keighley