help me learn C

[abhi]

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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

No WE would not. You do.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance, vis that topicality should encompass the dozens of
different programming environments and extensions to C that are
around, even though expert groups already exist to discuss these
topics.
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.
No, the discussion is taking place because some people want to retain
the historic topic of CLC, while others want to throw it away, and
create a general programming group discussing dozens of completely
incompatible environments.

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?

I'm struggling to see any logic behind the idea of throwing out the
baby with the bathwater, but YMMV.

By the way, whats so hard to understand about the idea of setting up a
new group matching your desired topicality. If, as you believe,
there's a need, then people will gravitate to it.
Many people here think that some of you are artificially restricting the
discussions to a narrow topic.
Actually, on a straw poll of all the recent posters, around two out of
several dozen do. In my book, thats "few" not "many".
Over time all things evolve or die. Even Newsgroups.

Then let this one die, if you think it will.
--
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

[Rod Pemberton]

"Joe Wright" <jo********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wt********************@comcast.com...

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?

*LOOK* at the name: comp.lang.c

It's that simple. Really, it is. It's especially true for the large number
of recent non-native English speakers who now have access to Usenet and post
to Usenet. Just how are they supposed to divine that comp.lang.c has some
hidden, ancient, and obsolete restricted purpose? comp.lang.c doesn't even
have a charter.

This fight has been going on since 1995, perhaps even earlier, over
something for which there is an extremely simple fix: create another usenet
group whose title appropriately reflects what you're interested in
discussing:

e.g.: comp.lang.iso.c

or: comp.lang.c.non-programming

Rod Pemberton

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 3 May 2006 20:52:29 -0400, in comp.lang.c , "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@sorry.bitbuck.cmm> wrote:

of recent non-native English speakers who now have access to Usenet and post
to Usenet. Just how are they supposed to divine that comp.lang.c
From any online nettiquette guide you care to mention:
"When you join a list serv or newgroup, monitor the messages for a few
days to get a feel for what common questions are asked, and what
topics are deemed off-limits. This is commonly referred to as
lurking."
has some hidden, ancient, and obsolete restricted purpose?
disingenuous and imflammatory remarks are why you're regarded as a
troll, remember?
comp.lang.c doesn't even have a charter.
.... because its been around so long, it predates such ideas. Instead
it has a Welcome message, trivial to find and covering topicality.
This fight has been going on since 1995, perhaps even earlier, is an extremely simple fix: create another usenet
group whose title appropriately reflects what you're interested in
discussing:

e.g.: comp.lang.iso.c

The phrase I'm thinking of is "comp.lang.c was here first, you go form
a new group if you want one, don't steal other peoples'"

--
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

[Chris Hills]

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

No WE would not. You do.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,

Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?

If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.

As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 4 May 2006 23:09:17 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

No WE would not. You do.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,

Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So

I'm aware of who Chris Hills is.
I am not sure with category I fit into.
the "some others" was inserted just for you.
However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.
Evidence for this assertion?
If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c
Please stop posting this misinformation.
As for this NG dying... it is.
For what its worth, I've been posting here since 1995, off and on, and
the daily volume hasn't changed much.
Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

As you will know well, CLC has no charter and predates that system.
The topic is therefore defined by the users. Its been defined.
--
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

[Andrew Poelstra]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

No WE would not. You do. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,

Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

No, if you want to discuss the standard itself that is where you go. If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.
Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used". Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.
I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or
extensions.
Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?
They are all standard C, in that they are C and they are standard. None
of them contain the functions "getch()" and "clrscrn()", which are two
of the most common functions people get mad about here. If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.
And many questions /are/ answered this way. They just also get redirects
to more topical areas. As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.
I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...
Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

--
"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>

[Chris Hills]

In article <gm********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Thu, 4 May 2006 23:09:17 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:
No WE would not. You do.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,
Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So

I'm aware of who Chris Hills is.

It's a myth :-)

I am not sure with category I fit into.

the "some others" was inserted just for you.

Thanks In a class of my own. (though some say it should be a room of my
own)

However I am not the only one who is not new or a troll who holds a
similar position on this.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

Evidence for this assertion?

See below

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c
Please stop posting this misinformation.

What miss information. It is where I and others discuss ISO C publicly
as opposed to the deliberations on the panel reflectors

As for this NG dying... it is.

For what its worth, I've been posting here since 1995, off and on, and
the daily volume hasn't changed much.

Yet the number of Internet users has multiplied by many orders of
magnitude. By chance when looking for something else I found several
other google/yahoo and other forums that were effectively a comp.lang.c
which equal volume to this one.
SO whilst this NG has maintained its volume of traffic/users it is in a
world where if you are not expanding you ARE going backwards.

This fragmentation is not good IMHO

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

As you will know well, CLC has no charter and predates that system.
The topic is therefore defined by the users. Its been defined.

Yes by me and several other users to have a wider remit that you
want..... You are not the user who decides.

That is the point. YOU do not get to dictate to others. There is no
committee, board or panel on this NG that can dictate to the rest.

All you are doing is driving people away to the other forums many of
which are now becoming or are passing c.l.c in volume and users. They
will be come the authoritative voice of C on the Internet.

I am not suggesting that we let all questions though here just a
relaxing a little in the attitude of the pious.

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

[Chris Hills]

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

No WE would not. You do.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,
Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

No, if you want to discuss the standard itself that is where you go.

Or standard C... it is where those of use on the ISO C panel discuss ISO
C publicly

If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or
extensions.

Good for you then you are in a very small minority. What targets do you
write for? what sort off applications?

Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?

They are all standard C, in that they are C and they are standard.

Then you are WRONG in that assertion.
None
of them contain the functions "getch()" and "clrscrn()", which are two
of the most common functions people get mad about here.

That is a red herring.

If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.

And many questions /are/ answered this way. They just also get redirects
to more topical areas.

As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.

I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment. Some of use were on line here before
you were born.

the Internet has expand by many orders of magnitude during your life
time. The traffic here has not. However there are many other forum
similar to c.l.c now around also with as much or more traffic as here.

As c.l.c is not growing in proportion to the growth in the Internet it
is therefore getting smaller.

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

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

[Keith Thompson]

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

I am not suggesting that we let all questions though here just a
relaxing a little in the attitude of the pious.

Can you be more specific about the kinds of things that you think
should be considered topical here?

--
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.

[Vladimir Oka]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".
You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

I beg to disagree.

Unless hundreds of KLOC of, say, embedded GSM/GPRS/3G protocol stack
amounts to "very little" C. And there's more than one of those. And
most of it doesn't even use /any/ library functions. (Obviously, at
some point it touches the hardware, but that can easily be nicely
isolated.) There must be other examples like this.

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or
extensions.

Good for you then you are in a very small minority. What targets do you
write for? what sort off applications?

See above.

I haven't used a library function (apart from `malloc()` and `free()`)
for more than five years. As a matter of fact noone in my department
has. Target: mobile phones. Applications: protocol stacks. Exactly the
same applied in my two previous jobs. Targets: deeply embedded systems.
Applications: HV systems protection and control, military communication
devices. (Again, there is a layer of non-standard hardware specific
stuff, but that's easily cordoned off from the standard code.)

I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment.

That's an unfair assumption
Some of use were on line here before you were born.

And that is irrelevant, and patronising.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

What the "C language" is, is defined by the "C Standard". Or is it not?

[Chris Hills]

In article <11**********************@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
Vladimir Oka <no****@btopenworld.com> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

>Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
>functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

I beg to disagree.

Unless hundreds of KLOC of, say, embedded GSM/GPRS/3G protocol stack
amounts to "very little" C.

written to ISO9899:1999?

>I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
>the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment.

That's an unfair assumption

Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience some
one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed any
formal training. Two months no this NG is hardley enough either.

Some of use were on line here before you were born.

And that is irrelevant, and patronising.

The point is that he is jumping in to a debat with 2 months exposure to
this NG and NO experience of C standards, any work experience or formal
training.

>The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

What the "C language" is, is defined by the "C Standard". Or is it not?

ISO 9899:1999? Which compiler do you use that use a pure implementation
of that?

If you want to widen it out to K&R 1, 2, ANSI89, ISO 90, 95/96 & 99 that
lets most things in except real world implementations.

If you discuss the C language I would have though "as implemented" was a
good idea instead of sending people away to other NG's

This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

You may say "good" but the net result (no pun intended :-) is that other
forum become THE place to ask authoritative questions on C and
comp.std.C is the place of requisitions on standard C

That leaves this NG dying on its feet because of a few purist.

You have an opportunity to build a much larger community on here. You
can educate people in the differences between what they are doing and
standard C. Make them aware there is a difference. In some cases there
may be a standard or portable way of doing things.

As it is with the way MS are adding TR's etc most questions will be
answered on the MS NG's leaving this NG with a VERY small focus and
fewer people.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Vladimir Oka]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <11**********************@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
Vladimir Oka <no****@btopenworld.com> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

>Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
>functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.
I beg to disagree.

Unless hundreds of KLOC of, say, embedded GSM/GPRS/3G protocol stack
amounts to "very little" C.

written to ISO9899:1999?

To ISO 90, as huge chunks of the code base predate C99.

>I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
>the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment.

That's an unfair assumption

Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience some
one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

Again, "any" sounds a bit too harsh. I prefer to keep an open mind.
After all, size does not matter in more areas of human endevour but
one. ;-)
He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed any
formal training.
That I can agree with. As an aside, the latter is useful, but far from
sine qua non.
Two months no this NG is hardley enough either.
One thing Google is good at, used wisely, is compressing history of
Usenet. I obviously can't speak for Andrew, but at his age time is a
comodity in ample supply, and he may have reviewed years of c.l.c in
those two months.

Some of use were on line here before you were born.

And that is irrelevant, and patronising.

The point is that he is jumping in to a debat with 2 months exposure to
this NG and NO experience of C standards, any work experience or formal
training.

So, attack his arguments. There's no need for ad hominem tackles.

>The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

What the "C language" is, is defined by the "C Standard". Or is it not?

ISO 9899:1999? Which compiler do you use that use a pure implementation
of that?

As I described above, even if one (fully conforming) existed I wouldn't
be using it (or its C99 features).
If you want to widen it out to K&R 1, 2, ANSI89, ISO 90, 95/96 & 99 that
lets most things in except real world implementations.
However, I find it useful that differences in various standards (past
and present) are pointed out in c.l.c. That's where I see value in
letting in more than one standard (but standard nonetheless).
If you discuss the C language I would have though "as implemented" was a
good idea instead of sending people away to other NG's
All compilers worth their salt allow for full standards compliance,
therefore standard C "as implemented" applies to all of them. Where
they introduce extensions, there are more knowledgable and more
narrowly defined places to disscus them.
This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

You may say "good" but the net result (no pun intended :-) is that other
forum become THE place to ask authoritative questions on C and
comp.std.C is the place of requisitions on standard C

That leaves this NG dying on its feet because of a few purist.
Be that as it may, but already having all these other places for
extensions, what is wrong with having *one* where only standard
language features are discussed. Why is it necessary to bring in all
the other topics that already have their fora? Are you advocating
getting rid of all the specialised groups in favour of c.l.c becoming
The One?
You have an opportunity to build a much larger community on here. You
can educate people in the differences between what they are doing and
standard C. Make them aware there is a difference. In some cases there
may be a standard or portable way of doing things.
But we (for wont of a better word) do! Non-standard features are
pointed out, and posters redirected to where expertise on them exists.

I for one have almost no knowledge worth mention of any of the
(mass-market) system-specific stuff and extensions. And yet, I have
been doing embedded C for more than a decade (and various assembly and
other languages for quite a bit longer).

So, where do I go for help and information? Certainly not a high
traffic group where non-system-specific posts are far and few between.
As it is with the way MS are adding TR's etc most questions will be
answered on the MS NG's leaving this NG with a VERY small focus and
fewer people.

All size comparisons are relative. One might also argue that a small
body of standard code (and people working on it) has relatively large
importance for its size, as it enables solutions to survive particular
sysems and implementations.

[Andrew Poelstra]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes
On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> No WE would not. You do.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,
Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c
No, if you want to discuss the standard itself that is where you go.

Or standard C... it is where those of use on the ISO C panel discuss ISO
C publicly

Standard C is discussed here, amid the discussions on what exactly we
discuss. For someone so insistent that real-world experience is
everything, looking at a few threads will tell you that.

If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

Really? I've seen huge games written where there are a few files of
non-standard C encapsulating library functions and other such non-C, and
dozens of files of completely legal C.

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or
extensions.

Good for you then you are in a very small minority. What targets do you
write for? what sort off applications?

Text-based applications, for friends and family, or for myself when I
have a certain problem that can't be decently solved in awk. When I want
graphics, I rewrite display.c, which is in all of my newer applications,
so that it itself is nonstandard, leaving the several other files intact.

Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?

They are all standard C, in that they are C and they are standard.

Then you are WRONG in that assertion.

I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you meant by wrong; which
assertation are you talking about?

None
of them contain the functions "getch()" and "clrscrn()", which are two
of the most common functions people get mad about here.

That is a red herring.

I could list other common non-standard abuses that not only could be
encapsulated and isolated, but could be eliminated entirely.

If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.

And many questions /are/ answered this way. They just also get redirects
to more topical areas.

As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.

I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment.

That's an unfair generalization. I've been programming for eight years,
in C for six. I know enough to post to this newsgroup.
Some of use were on line here before
you were born.
I'm aware of that; I know my history. ;-)
the Internet has expand by many orders of magnitude during your life
time. The traffic here has not. However there are many other forum
similar to c.l.c now around also with as much or more traffic as here.

As c.l.c is not growing in proportion to the growth in the Internet it
is therefore getting smaller.

The intellect of the average internet user has gone down dramatically as
its population has gone up; the number of smart people online isn't
going to change much. You don't want to know what will happen if c.l.c
had to handle the average joe posting on here.

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

We don't need a charter because c.l.c has been here for so long, as you
pointed out when attacking my age, and its purpose is established.

The C language is defined by the C standard.

--
"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>

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

.... snip ...
the Internet has expand by many orders of magnitude during your life
time. The traffic here has not. However there are many other forum
similar to c.l.c now around also with as much or more traffic as here.

As c.l.c is not growing in proportion to the growth in the Internet it
is therefore getting smaller.

As a newsgroups traffic expands, it becomes unwieldy and
participants drop out. This puts a natural cap on the size of any
one group. It is something like the relationship of the population
of rabbits to the population of lynxes.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

Vladimir Oka <no****@btopenworld.com> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

.... snip ...

I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I
agree with the purists on most every count. Not sure how that
qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment.

That's an unfair assumption

Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience
some one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed
any formal training. Two months no this NG is hardley enough either.

Well, at least judging from the above quoted portion, his spelling
is better than yours. This could be due to better care, better
training, or other factors. I have insufficient data.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

[Default User]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <gm********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

For what its worth, I've been posting here since 1995, off and on,
and the daily volume hasn't changed much.

Yet the number of Internet users has multiplied by many orders of
magnitude.

That's irrelevant. The number of usenet users is steadily declining. It
has nothing to do with the policies of clc, it's a general condition.
Many ISPs no longer offer usenet access at all, notably AOL.
By chance when looking for something else I found several
other google/yahoo and other forums that were effectively a
comp.lang.c which equal volume to this one.
The competition from the web forums is one factor in the OVERALL
decline of usenet participation. That doesn't mean their views
topicality have anything to do with it.
SO whilst this NG has maintained its volume of traffic/users it is in
a world where if you are not expanding you ARE going backwards.

Actually, we are in a world that is shrinking. So if we're maintaining,
we're ahead of the game.


Brian

[Keith Thompson]

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

This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

Can you provide pointers to these other forums?

Do any of them discuss *just* the language as defined by the standard
(which happens to be one of the many things I'm interested in
discussing)?

--
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 Fri, 5 May 2006 08:23:29 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

Okay, now I'm convinced you're not the "real" Chris Hills. This is
such a disingenuous remark to make, its unbelievable. Besides which,
its false.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim

You're the one who misunderstands.

Troll alert.
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 11:12:12 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <11**********************@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
Vladimir Oka <no****@btopenworld.com> writes

That's an unfair assumption
Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience some
one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

You patronising git. I seem to recall some posters here with oodles of
knowledge were fresh out of college, others have been around for
longer even than Chris "I'm older than usenet" Hills. Thats about all
there is to say.
He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed any
formal training.

Since when did you need formal training to understand the purpose of a
news group.
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:23:29 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

You do not know enough to comment. Some of use were on line here before
you were born.

I'd just like to stress that this is patronising, pompous, overweening
and bullshit. My dad was around maths before I was born, but he knows
considerably less about derivatives pricing than I do.

If you have a point to make, make it, don't waste time inflating your
ego and crowing at the masthead.
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:14:11 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <gm********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Thu, 4 May 2006 23:09:17 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

Evidence for this assertion?

See below

You seem to have forgotten to attach the evidence.
Yet the number of Internet users has multiplied by many orders of
magnitude. By chance when looking for something else I found several
other google/yahoo and other forums that were effectively a comp.lang.c
which equal volume to this one.
Did you mean this ?I'm sorry, but unattributable remarks about volumes
of internet users have no bearing on the traffic of CLC. When usenet
started, the VAST MAJORITY (intentional shouting) of users were
techies. Now they're mostly as techy as a frog. You expected them to
want to learn C? Get real.
SO whilst this NG has maintained its volume of traffic/users it is in a
world where if you are not expanding you ARE going backwards.

See above. False conclusion from bogus data.
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:14:11 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:
<who cares>

I forgot to add: threadPLONK
--
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

[jacob navia]

Chris Hills a écrit :

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>No WE would not. You do.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,

Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

No, if you want to discuss the standard itself that is where you go.

Or standard C... it is where those of use on the ISO C panel discuss ISO
C publicly

If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or
extensions.

Good for you then you are in a very small minority. What targets do you
write for? what sort off applications?

Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?

They are all standard C, in that they are C and they are standard.

Then you are WRONG in that assertion.

None
of them contain the functions "getch()" and "clrscrn()", which are two
of the most common functions people get mad about here.

That is a red herring.

If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.

And many questions /are/ answered this way. They just also get redirects
to more topical areas.

As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.

I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment. Some of use were on line here before
you were born.

the Internet has expand by many orders of magnitude during your life
time. The traffic here has not. However there are many other forum
similar to c.l.c now around also with as much or more traffic as here.

As c.l.c is not growing in proportion to the growth in the Internet it
is therefore getting smaller.

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

Hi Chris.

There are other people that think like you. This group should allow
discussing about the language as used, its future, its evolution and
many other important stuff rather than always accepting only homework
and keeping the level of discussion at the ground floor.

We are doing a very interesting discussion (the first one in this group
since at least 10 years) where it is possible to discuss about the
possible evolution of C. See the "Boost process and C" discussion.

jacob

[Ian Collins]

Chris Hills wrote:

ISO 9899:1999? Which compiler do you use that use a pure implementation
of that?

If you want to widen it out to K&R 1, 2, ANSI89, ISO 90, 95/96 & 99 that
lets most things in except real world implementations.

If you discuss the C language I would have though "as implemented" was a
good idea instead of sending people away to other NG's

This NG is staying static in size rather than growing with the Internet.
What is growing are other c lists and forum where the people who visit
here with a non-pure question end up.

You may say "good" but the net result (no pun intended :-) is that other
forum become THE place to ask authoritative questions on C and
comp.std.C is the place of requisitions on standard C

That leaves this NG dying on its feet because of a few purist.

You have an opportunity to build a much larger community on here. You
can educate people in the differences between what they are doing and
standard C. Make them aware there is a difference. In some cases there
may be a standard or portable way of doing things.
I think a lot of the flak you draw is due to the problems that occurred
down the hall with the C++ group. People are naturally concerned that
this group could degenerate into another windows programming forum.
Before anyone accuses me of bias, I only picked windows because it is
the most widely used platform and most of the OT posts here are from
windows users who don't realise this is a platform neutral group.

Which still leaves the problem of what should and shouldn't be
discussed. The same question came up on the long running "Boost process
and C" thread a few days back.

I think the only contentions issue is whether discussions around the
future evolution of the the language are on or off topic. These could
either take place here, on on c.s.c, or on a third group. As we don't
have another venue, I think general musings and discussions can only
take place here, with more concrete proposals going to c.s.c.
As it is with the way MS are adding TR's etc most questions will be
answered on the MS NG's leaving this NG with a VERY small focus and
fewer people.

TRs are a tricky one, in the C++ world, they tend to be actively
discussed on the moderated group or on the std group, keeping the
unmoderated group for the current language. So the place for TRs is c.s.c.

--
Ian Collins.

[Chris Hills]

In article <44***********************@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes

Chris Hills a écrit :

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

Hi Chris.

There are other people that think like you. This group should allow
discussing about the language as used, its future, its evolution and
many other important stuff rather than always accepting only homework
and keeping the level of discussion at the ground floor.

Thanks.

I shall now retire to the NG's where we discuss, formulate and actually
produce the standards this lot harp on about. I find there are other far
more mature and authoritative NG's for discussion C than this one.

Over the last few years this one seems to have degenerated to where a
few thought police are ruining it. It is getting religious where a few
think they can invent a pseudo charter and push it on the rest of us.

I never got this precious over the NG I created some years back. Let it
live and breath. It served it purpose.
We are doing a very interesting discussion (the first one in this group
since at least 10 years) where it is possible to discuss about the
possible evolution of C. See the "Boost process and C" discussion.

So I saw. Good luck though there have bee other interesting discussion
on here over the last decade and a half but they are getting fewer.

For definitive discussions on ISO C use comp.std.c for mature discussion
son C in general comp.lang.c.moderated. I got flamed on here for
several things I posted that were well received on the moderated side.
Interestingly by some "house hold names" in the industry.

Regards
Chris

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

[Chris Hills]

In article <h2********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> writes

On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:23:29 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<ap*******@shaw.ca> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard
functions, this is the place for "the language as used".
You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

Okay, now I'm convinced you're not the "real" Chris Hills. This is
such a disingenuous remark to make, its unbelievable. Besides which,
its false.

Perhaps I am biased as I work with a coupe of tool companies who
analyse source code. Perhaps they are all wrong. I am sure you have a
far wider view of the industry than they do.

The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim

You're the one who misunderstands.

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say what
the actual use of the NG is.

Either it is there in print or it is open to interpretation for anyone.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.
Troll alert.

Clearly you are one.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Keith Thompson]

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

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say what
the actual use of the NG is.

Either it is there in print or it is open to interpretation for anyone.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.

As we all know, there is no written charter simply because the
newsgroup was created before the existence of newsgroup charters.
As a result, topicality is judged by the consensus of the regulars.
I've already stated what I think that consensus is and should be.

Can you explain, with some *specific* examples, what kinds of things
you think should be topical here that people have said shouldn't be?

(By convention, meta-discussions about topicality, like this one, are
considered 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.

[Default User]

Chris Hills wrote:

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say
what the actual use of the NG is.
Pure, blithering nonsense. Under your theory, we could be discussing
lottery strategy or tuning race car engines.
I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.

In the absence of a charter, the majority will prevails. You aren't in
the majority. Others have tried your blather in the past, it's failed,
as will you.

Brian

[Chris Hills]

In article <4c*************@individual.net>, Default User
<de***********@yahoo.com> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say
what the actual use of the NG is.
Pure, blithering nonsense. Under your theory, we could be discussing
lottery strategy or tuning race car engines.

Yes. In most NG's they occasionally stray off topic. In the embedded NG
there is currently s discussion on aids! Most have said it makes a
change and is a good thing to stray occasionally.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.

In the absence of a charter, the majority will prevails. You aren't in
the majority.

given the number of people on here who according to you who ask OT
questions and that a lot of use disagree with the vociferous few you
have no grounds to say that. Let alon any proof..
Others have tried your blather in the past, it's failed,
as will you.

Maybe this time but eventually we will get this back to the open and
friendly NG it was before the thought police got so pious and cranky as
in recent months.

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

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

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

Yes. In most NG's they occasionally stray off topic. In the embedded NG
there is currently s discussion on aids!
Surely there's a more appropriate group in which to discuss AIDS than
the embedded newsgroup.
given the number of people on here who according to you who ask OT
questions and that a lot of use disagree with the vociferous few you
have no grounds to say that. Let alon any proof..
It turns out that the "vociferous few" such as Brian are also the most
uniformly knowledgeable and helpful posters, so if you'd like to
migrate to their killfiles, by all means keep belaboring this point.
Maybe this time but eventually we will get this back to the open and
friendly NG it was before the thought police got so pious and cranky as
in recent months.

You are clearly new here, as our most cranky regular, Dan Pop, has not
been seen in some time.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Chris Hills]

In article <e3**********@chessie.cirr.com>, Christopher Benson-Manica
<at***@norge.freeshell.org> writes

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

Yes. In most NG's they occasionally stray off topic. In the embedded NG
there is currently s discussion on aids!

Surely there's a more appropriate group in which to discuss AIDS than
the embedded newsgroup.

Yes but it came up as a side comment in a topic that strayed a bit. The
interesting comment from most was that it did no harm. Also that
permitted the NG members to have a "social" off topic chat that was felt
to be a good idea every now and again. A bit like a tea/coffee break
when you discuss football or the latest government cock up.

given the number of people on here who according to you who ask OT
questions and that a lot of use disagree with the vociferous few you
have no grounds to say that. Let alon any proof..

It turns out that the "vociferous few" such as Brian are also the most
uniformly knowledgeable and helpful posters, so if you'd like to
migrate to their killfiles, by all means keep belaboring this point.

OK... as I am on various other NG's including the ISO WG's it should not
be to much of a problem.

Maybe this time but eventually we will get this back to the open and
friendly NG it was before the thought police got so pious and cranky as
in recent months.

You are clearly new here, as our most cranky regular, Dan Pop, has not
been seen in some time.

He is alive and well on other lists and as interesting as usual. I
would not presume to call him cranky. :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

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

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

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say what
the actual use of the NG is.

Either it is there in print or it is open to interpretation for anyone.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.
As we all know, there is no written charter simply because the
newsgroup was created before the existence of newsgroup charters.
As a result, topicality is judged by the consensus of the regulars.
I've already stated what I think that consensus is and should be.

OK.
Can you explain, with some *specific* examples, what kinds of things
you think should be topical here that people have said shouldn't be?
Not *specifically* That is where you and I differ. I do not want a
rigid definition of what is on topic. Rigid definitions are OK for
system specifications and standards* but not for a discussion area. You
need broad definitions. Anything else stifles debate.

*In which the current C standard falls over badly.

In a recent [according to you] off topic post the reply was an answer to
some parts but the OP was directed to another NG for other parts
(hardware) of the question. He was also told which parts of his code
were not standard C and should be amended... another void main()!

This is a much better response than just saying "go away". Because they
do and start up other NG's and lists. Many others find those lists
before they find this one and you loos a lot of people who would be
useful contributors here. Actually there has been some discussion on the
general decline for usenet anyway.

I do share your fear that this could end up as an MS-C/ windows NG but
given the number of Linux and embedded users there are this should not
be the case. Though few of them use standard C. Also this is your
opportunity to educate.

(BTW do you include IEC, MISRA and ECMA as part of the standardisation
process or just ISO?)

In a communication today regarding MS compilers I was told the
following:-
now in the works, plus the ECMA standards cited above, all describe
*working products that have been shipped to millions of customers.*
By contrast, both the C99 and C++ Standards have been widely, and
properly, criticized for codifying nonexistent practice which explains
why 100 per cent conformance to either standard is rare.
So the C99 standard has "codified nonexistent practice" and explains why
with I think 4 exceptions no one has implemented a full C99 compiler. I
believe that 2 of the 4 were implemented for political reasons and will
probably not be used in full conforming mode.

So C is neither implemented or used as per the standard and since you do
not discuss the standard here that is on comp.std.c and you do not
discuss the language as implemented discussion will tend to zero over
time. Or be pointless.

All I want to do is let people ask general C questions here and have
sensible conversations.
(By convention, meta-discussions about topicality, like this one, are
considered topical.)

In my case I don't need any dispensation as I don't subscribe to your
rules in the first place. :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Malcolm]

"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote in

In article <11**********************@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
Vladimir Oka <no****@btopenworld.com> writes

Chris Hills wrote:

>I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with
>the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as
>dying...

You do not know enough to comment.
That's an unfair assumption

Given that some of use have over 25 years professional experience some
one at age 14 is not going to have any real world experience.

He is not old enough to have had any work experience nor completed any
formal training. Two months no this NG is hardley enough either.

Adults minds are better than children's, but only the best of them.

I was happily programming video games at 14. Now I know a lot more than I
did then, but the fundamentals haven't changed. 14 year olds' programs still
have to execute correctly and in reasonable time, just like professionals'.
Of course the consequences of error may be less serious. Or maybe more
serious - a really good program by Andrew might have much more impact on his
future earning prospects than a really good program by someone in a senior
position.

I wouldn't put too much store by either work experience or formal training.
Formal training is a bit like "creative writing" courses. There are
individuals who are helped, but basically if you have it in you to be a good
programmer or a good novelist then you can achieve that by practise and
hanging around this ng. Work experience often doesn't translate well to
other workplaces. For instance I once applied for a job in medical imaging
software. The interviwer asked me what formal methods I used. I replied that
we didn't use formal methods in games programming. She didn't seem to
believe me and said that surely you have a method for going from idea to
finished product. I said we didn't use any formal method, and of course I
didn't get the job.

I only issue I've got with Andrew's age is some of the language used by
other posters. For instance jacob navia was described in another thread as a
"fuckwit". He probably is, but it isn't fair to minors for them to come
across these words in a technical forum.
You have an opportunity to build a much larger community on here. You
can educate people in the differences between what they are doing and
standard C. Make them aware there is a difference. In some cases there
may be a standard or portable way of doing things.
I would like to read every post every day. I cannot achieve that. The
comp.lang.c community would in fact fall apart if it got much larger.

My website www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/bgy1mm
Programming goodies

[Malcolm]

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote

Chris Hills wrote:

... snip ...

the Internet has expand by many orders of magnitude during your life
time. The traffic here has not. However there are many other forum
similar to c.l.c now around also with as much or more traffic as here.

As c.l.c is not growing in proportion to the growth in the Internet it
is therefore getting smaller.

As a newsgroups traffic expands, it becomes unwieldy and
participants drop out. This puts a natural cap on the size of any
one group. It is something like the relationship of the population
of rabbits to the population of lynxes.

No its not.
Read about optimal group size theory in "Living in groups" by Jens Krause.

The idea is that each individual can choose whether to join or leave a group
based on his selfish considerations. Normally there will be certain
advantages to membership, such as protection from predators, or, in our
case, exchange of information. However there will also be penalties, such as
competition for food, or, in our case, time invested in reading through the
ng. There are also costs in joining and leaving groups, or finding new ones.

For instance, there might a forum on yahoo groups which meets my needs much
better than comp.lang.c, but I've got to find it and then establish myself
as a regular, which all takes time and effort.

So the size of the group is determined by these complex factors, and may be
bigger or larger than what would be regarded as optimal.

Website: www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/bgy1mm
Programming goodies.

[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:
[...]

If there is no charter then there is no charter and you can not say what
the actual use of the NG is.

Either it is there in print or it is open to interpretation for anyone.

I am as much entitled as you or some one who has been here 8 weeks it
seems to decide that the intended use of this NG is.
As we all know, there is no written charter simply because the
newsgroup was created before the existence of newsgroup charters.
As a result, topicality is judged by the consensus of the regulars.
I've already stated what I think that consensus is and should be.

OK.

Can you explain, with some *specific* examples, what kinds of things
you think should be topical here that people have said shouldn't be?

Not *specifically* That is where you and I differ. I do not want a
rigid definition of what is on topic. Rigid definitions are OK for
system specifications and standards* but not for a discussion area. You
need broad definitions. Anything else stifles debate.

But surely you can provide specific examples of things that you think
should be considered topical here.
*In which the current C standard falls over badly.

In a recent [according to you] off topic post the reply was an answer to
some parts but the OP was directed to another NG for other parts
(hardware) of the question. He was also told which parts of his code
were not standard C and should be amended... another void main()!
Without knowing the example you're referring to, I can't really say
much about this. If, as you say, the poster was told that parts of
his code were non-standard and should be corrected, and that other
parts of his code were system-specific and should be discussed in
another newsgroup, it sounds like the query was dealt with properly
and in accordance with what I think is the consensus among the
regulars of what is and is not topical.

If you'll cite a specific thread, perhaps we can discuss this further.
Based on this vaguely described example, I don't see where we
disagree, and yet it seems clear that we do.
This is a much better response than just saying "go away". Because they
do and start up other NG's and lists. Many others find those lists
before they find this one and you loos a lot of people who would be
useful contributors here. Actually there has been some discussion on the
general decline for usenet anyway.
I do not advocate simply telling people to "go away" with no further
explanation (except for deliberate trolls, of course). (No, I don't
consider you to be a troll.)
I do share your fear that this could end up as an MS-C/ windows NG but
given the number of Linux and embedded users there are this should not
be the case. Though few of them use standard C. Also this is your
opportunity to educate.

(BTW do you include IEC, MISRA and ECMA as part of the standardisation
process or just ISO?)
IEC is part of ISO, isn't it, or at least closely associated with it?
The C99 standard is "ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E)". So yes, certainly IEC is
part of the standardization process. I'm less sure about MISRA; I
tend to think of it as a secondary standard like POSIX, but I'm not
sure where it should be discussed. I'm not aware of any ECMA standard
for C.

[...] So the C99 standard has "codified nonexistent practice" and explains why
with I think 4 exceptions no one has implemented a full C99 compiler. I
believe that 2 of the 4 were implemented for political reasons and will
probably not be used in full conforming mode.

So C is neither implemented or used as per the standard and since you do
not discuss the standard here that is on comp.std.c and you do not
discuss the language as implemented discussion will tend to zero over
time. Or be pointless.
We frequently have discussions about the differences between C90 and
C99, and the fact that C99 as isn't widely implemented as some of us
might like. When I cite a standard, I usually quote from C99 (usually
N1124), largely because my copy of the C90 standard was rendered into
PDF in such a way that it's very difficult to search or to
copy-and-paste.
All I want to do is let people ask general C questions here and have
sensible conversations.

I agree 100%. We just need to figure out what the phrase "general C
questions" means. I have yet to get a good sense of what you mean by
that phrase.

--
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.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

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

Can you explain, with some *specific* examples, what kinds of things
you think should be topical here that people have said shouldn't be?
Not *specifically* That is where you and I differ. I do not want a
rigid definition of what is on topic. Rigid definitions are OK for
system specifications and standards* but not for a discussion area. You
need broad definitions. Anything else stifles debate.

So anyway, Chris - how's the garden?
I do share your fear that this could end up as an MS-C/ windows NG but
given the number of Linux and embedded users there are this should not
be the case.
Sure. Instead, it'll end up as a complete mess, with large quantities of
Linux articles (for which comp.os.linux.development.apps already exists),
large quantities of Windows articles (for which
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 already exists), and about the same
number of questions about the core language as we get now, except that
they'll be harder to find, and some of us are too busy to spend time
weeding out the junk. So you've come up with a great way to purge this
group of C expertise. Nice one.
Though few of them use standard C.
Those of us who /do/ use standard C would like a newsgroup in which we can
discuss it. And oh look, we /have/ such a group already. If people want to
discuss libs or platforms, there are already lots of newsgroups for doing
that.
So C is neither implemented or used as per the standard
I agree that C99 isn't implemented sufficiently widely to be useful. In
fact, the only impact C99 has had on me is to restrict me to the common
subset of C90 and C99, against a time when C99 /might/ one day be widely
implemented.

But C90 is still a viable standard, and whilst I accept that there might be
esoteric little corners of the language that some compilers don't get quite
right, I keep my code in the mainstream. (For example, I don't care about
the rights and wrongs of p = p->next = q; when I know I can write p->next =
q; p = p->next; and sidestep the issue completely.)

Because C90 is a viable standard, and because I write so much code in C90, I
find it very useful to subscribe to a newsgroup where many C experts are
ready to discuss and advise on standard C issues. This is the only
newsgroup I know of that provides such a service. If it goes down the
tubes, I will not be best pleased. And if you open it up to discussions
about Unix, Linux, the Mac, Windows, windows, window panes, greenhouses,
tomatoes, gardening, garden tools, spades, hearts, diamonds, emeralds, the
Irish question, Parnell, Gladstone, Gladstone bags, carpet bags, vacuum
cleaners, vacuums, vacuum fluctuations, big bang, little bang, internal
combustion, the price of oil, and the problems inherent in invading enough
countries to keep a tight control on the supply, then the comp.lang.c group
will indeed go down the tubes, and rebuilding it afterwards will not be at
all easy.

All I want to do is let people ask general C questions here and have
sensible conversations.

Right. So we want the same thing, yes? Except, of course, that we don't. I
don't consider a question about, say, getch() or socket() to be a general C
question.
--
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)