FAQ incorrect?

[nroberts]

In the faq for this group:

Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

A: There are two valid declarations:

int main(void)
int main(int argc, char **argv)

although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

int main()

int main(argc, argv)
int argc; char **argv;

.......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html

The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

Another faq claiming to represent this group has the following text for
the same Q:

A: Either int main(), int main(void), or int main(int argc,
char *argv[]) (with alternate spellings of argc and *argv[]
obviously allowed). See also questions 11.12b to 11.15 below.

References: ISO Sec. 5.1.2.2.1, Sec. G.5.1; H&S Sec. 20.1 p.
416; CT&P Sec. 3.10 pp. 50-51.

............... http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/

It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).

[Andrey Tarasevich]

nroberts wrote:

...
although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

int main()

int main(argc, argv)
int argc; char **argv;

......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html

The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

The way it is worded (seeing the "old-style syntax" mentioned and so on) makes
it clear that it is specifically referring to the declaration of 'main', which
is a part of _definition_ of 'main'. When the empty parameter list '()' is used
in a definition, it always means 'no parameters' (equivalent to '(void)'), not
'unspecified parameters'.

...
It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).
...

Only in the declaration that is not a definition. In a definition '()' and
'(void)' mean the same thing - no parameters.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

[Walter Roberson]

In article <11*********************@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
nroberts <ro**********@gmail.comwrote:

>In the faq for this group:

>Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

>for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

> int main()

>The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main.

It is.

However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list?

According to C89 3.5.4.3, an empty parameter list in a function
definition indicates that the function takes no parameters. A single
parameter of void indicates that the function takes no parameters.

In a function declaration that is not the function definition,
then the empty parameter list does indicate unspecified arguments.
--
Programming is what happens while you're busy making other plans.

[Andrey Tarasevich]

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

...
Only in the declaration that is not a definition. In a definition '()' and
'(void)' mean the same thing - no parameters.
...

Of course, one might argue that the FAQ should state it explicitly that the
declaration being discussed is actually the _definition_ of 'main'. The standard
actually uses the term 'definition' when it list the valid forms of 'main'.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

[jacob navia]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <11*********************@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
nroberts <ro**********@gmail.comwrote:

>>In the faq for this group:

>>Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

>>for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

>> int main()

>>The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main.

It is.

>>However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list?

According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Walter Roberson wrote:

<snip>

>According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

It's perfectly valid according to a large number of compilers that support
it and a huge number of programmers who use it. If we were to consider C89
as invalid, then we would have no valid, widely-implemented C standard,
which would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

--
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)

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <S6********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>jacob navia said:

>Walter Roberson wrote:

<snip>

>>According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

It's perfectly valid according to a large number of compilers that support
it and a huge number of programmers who use it. If we were to consider C89
as invalid, then we would have no valid, widely-implemented C standard,
which would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

But, but, but. Wait a second! Phrases like "large number of
compilers", "huge number of programmers", "widely implemented" and
"ridiculous" (this last in the sense of "a condition or position to be
avoided") have no place in and no traction in CLC. Such references to a
stupid (not to mention, inconvenient) little thing known as reality
clearly have no place here. In fact, they are flash-point words that
uniformly stir the "regs" to action/flaming.

Really, you need to re-think that post or you may lose your place in the
he-man newbie-hating society.

[nroberts]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

Really, you need to re-think that post or you may lose your place in the
he-man newbie-hating society.

Hehehe...always interesting how one can inadvertently stir up a bee's
nest...

Thanks for the answers, guys.

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-08-04, nroberts <ro**********@gmail.comwrote:

>
Kenny McCormack wrote:

>Really, you need to re-think that post or you may lose your place in the
he-man newbie-hating society.

Hehehe...always interesting how one can inadvertently stir up a bee's
nest...

If by `one' you mean yourself, you did nothing wrong. If by `one' you
mean McCormack, it wasn't inadvertent. He's a troll, and it's best you
don't respond to his deranged mutterings.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/projects>
To reach me by email, use `apoelstra' at the above domain.
"Do BOTH ends of the cable need to be plugged in?" -Anon.

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:

Walter Roberson wrote:

>In article <11*********************@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
nroberts <ro**********@gmail.comwrote:

>>>In the faq for this group:

>>>Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

>>>for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

>>> int main()

>>>The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main.

It is.

>>>However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list?

According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

So I can safely ignore C89/C90 and program strictly in C99? And I can
freely use features like, say, designated initializers and structure
initializers with the dot notation, and not have to worry that some
compiler might not implement them?

You wrote two days ago, in comp.compilers.lcc, that lcc-win32 doesn't
implement those features. Does that mean that lcc-win32 isn't a real
C compiler?

You've argued at times that compiler-specific extensions should be
considered topical here, and at other times that nothing other than
the C99 standard is topical (as opposed to the generally accepted
guideline that C99, C95, C89/C90, K&R C, and even earlier versions of
the language are topical, the latter mostly in historical context).

If you'll put together a coherent and consistent set of topicality
guidelines, let us know and we might consider it (no guarantees of
course) -- or maybe you can set up your own alt.* newsgroup. Until
then, perhaps you'd consider letting the rest of us work these things
out for ourselves.

It is a fact that the C90 standard is still very relevant, and this
newsgroup is the appropriate place to discuss it, your fantasies to
the contrary notwithstanding.

--
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.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <sl**********************@localhost.localdomain> ,
Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@false.sitewrote:

>On 2006-08-04, nroberts <ro**********@gmail.comwrote:

>>
Kenny McCormack wrote:

>>Really, you need to re-think that post or you may lose your place in the
he-man newbie-hating society.

Hehehe...always interesting how one can inadvertently stir up a bee's
nest...

If by `one' you mean yourself, you did nothing wrong. If by `one' you
mean McCormack, it wasn't inadvertent. He's a troll, and it's best you
don't respond to his deranged mutterings.

Pot, kettle, black.

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

>>Walter Roberson wrote:

<snip>

>>>According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

It's perfectly valid according to a large number of compilers that support
it and a huge number of programmers who use it. If we were to consider C89
as invalid, then we would have no valid, widely-implemented C standard,
which would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

OK OK.

When I bring a large number of compilers in many OSes
that support

#pragma once

you tell me that it is non-standard.

When I say that the standard is now

int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you start with a large number of compilers that support C89.

There are many compilers that support the K&R standard (without
prototypes).

Should we recommned new users that they use that?

Let's standardize in the standard we use: :-)

The *current* standard.

The rest is HISTORICAL and just confuses people

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:

>>>Walter Roberson wrote:

<snip>

>>>>According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

It's perfectly valid according to a large number of compilers that
support it and a huge number of programmers who use it. If we were to
consider C89 as invalid, then we would have no valid, widely-implemented
C standard, which would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

OK OK.

When I bring a large number of compilers in many OSes
that support

#pragma once

you tell me that it is non-standard.

But your idea of "large number" is a relatively small number, whereas the
number of compilers conforming to C89 is considerably greater. In fact,
you'd be hard-pressed to find a C compiler in current use that did not
conform to C89 (modulo the odd bug), whereas it is so easy to find a C
compiler that does not support #pragma once that you managed it all by
yourself.

When I say that the standard is now

int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short of
a declarator.

you start with a large number of compilers that support C89.

Indeed. Note that int main(void) and int main(int argc, char *argv[]) or
their equivalents have been the forms recommended by clc for many years, so
I don't see what point you're trying to make here.

There are many compilers that support the K&R standard (without
prototypes).

Sure. Whilst they do not conform to C89 (at least, when invoked in K&R
mode), they nevertheless may prove useful to some people. K&R C is still
topical here.

Should we recommned new users that they use that?

Only if they are obliged to use K&R compilers.

Let's standardize in the standard we use: :-)

It's not up to you and me to determine which flavours of C are topical here.
By longstanding convention, K&R C, C90, and now C99 are all topical in clc.

The *current* standard.

Fine, as soon as it becomes as widely implemented as C90 currently is, which
won't be for many years.

The rest is HISTORICAL and just confuses people

The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss K&R
C, C90, /and/ C99.

--
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)

[Frederick Gotham]

Troll Alert: Kenny McCormack

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding
others not to respond to trolls.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Frederick Gotham]

Troll Alert: Kenny McCormack

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding
others not to respond to trolls.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:

>>>Walter Roberson wrote:

<snip>

>>>>According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

It's perfectly valid according to a large number of compilers that
support it and a huge number of programmers who use it. If we were
to consider C89 as invalid, then we would have no valid,
widely-implemented C standard, which would be a ridiculous state of
affairs.

OK OK.

When I bring a large number of compilers in many OSes
that support

#pragma once

you tell me that it is non-standard.

Yes, because it is.

When I say that the standard is now

int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you start with a large number of compilers that support C89.

I don't see your point here; that didn't change between C89 and C99
(except for C99's explicit permission to have more
implementation-defined forms, but extensions were already permitted).

There are many compilers that support the K&R standard (without
prototypes).

Should we recommned new users that they use that?

Of course not. There are few C compilers still in common use that
don't support at least the C89/C90 standard reasonably well. There
are even fewer platforms still in common use that don't have at least
*some* compiler that supports at least the C89/C90 standard, even if
the native compiler doesn't. There is no longer very much point in
worrying about pre-C89 compilers. On the other hand, if any users run
into a situation where they need to program in C on a system with no
modern compiler available, yes, this would be the place to ask for
advice.

Let's standardize in the standard we use: :-)

The *current* standard.

The rest is HISTORICAL and just confuses people

One more time. The full C89/C90 standard is widely implemented. The
C99 standard is not. Not everyone uses, or is able to use, the C99
standard. Even your own lcc-win32 doesn't implement all of it. That
is reality.

Will you, just once, *acknowledge* that plain fact? Or will you
continue to deny reality and make a fool of yourself? (I think I
already know the answer, but I'm always prepared to be pleasantly
surprised.)

--
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.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <oS*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:

>
Troll Alert: Kenny McCormack

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Frederick Gotham]

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding
others not to respond to trolls.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Keith Thompson]

Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding
others not to respond to trolls.

Yes, we know.

Usually someone posts a single followup to anyone who responds to the
troll in question, and that generally works reasonably well. Starting
a new thread gives the troll more attention.

--
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.

[Jack Klein]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:38:18 +0200, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote in comp.lang.c:

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <11*********************@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
nroberts <ro**********@gmail.comwrote:

>In the faq for this group:

>Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

>for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

> int main()

>The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main.

It is.

>However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list?

According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

Jacob, you're getting to be a real PITA. Since the text is
essentially the same in the current standard, it makes no real
difference.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to
reminding others not to respond to trolls.

Yes, we know.

Usually someone posts a single followup to anyone who responds to the
troll in question, and that generally works reasonably well. Starting
a new thread gives the troll more attention.

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

Brian

[Frederick Gotham]

Default User posted:

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

--

Frederick Gotham

[Al Balmer]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:

>Default User posted:

>Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Keith Thompson]

Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:

Default User posted:

>Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

>
I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

I had already read the previous articles in the thread, so my
newsreader didn't display them. My newsreader probably displayed your
article as continuation of the thread (I'm not sure how or whether it
distinguishes that), but since the subject header didn't start with
"Re:" I assumed it was a new thread. I had to check the headers to
verify that it was a followup to something else.

Changing the subject header in a followup us usually not a good idea;
if you do so, it's usually a good idea to refer to the previous
subject ("New Subject (was: Old Subject)".

--
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]

Al Balmer wrote:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:

Default User posted:

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change

in >subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread. By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject. The references will be there to
link it to the previous messages in the thread.


Brian

[Al Balmer]

On 5 Aug 2006 19:42:43 GMT, "Default User" <de***********@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Al Balmer wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:

Default User posted:

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change

in >subject in an existing thread.

>

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread.

If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)

By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject.

Yes, we know. He said that.

The references will be there to
link it to the previous messages in the thread.

We know that, too.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Default User]

Al Balmer wrote:

On 5 Aug 2006 19:42:43 GMT, "Default User" <de***********@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread.

If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)

But that's not the normal definition of a new thread.

By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject.

Yes, we know. He said that.

Ok.
Brian

[CBFalconer]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Default User posted:

>Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change
in subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

It doesn't, in proper news readers that use the 'references' header
field correctly. Some stupid systems, such as Google, ignore that
field and depend on the subject header alone.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@maineline.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.netUSE maineline address!

[ena8t8si]

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

nroberts wrote:

...
although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

int main()

int main(argc, argv)
int argc; char **argv;

......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html

The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

The way it is worded (seeing the "old-style syntax" mentioned and so on) makes
it clear that it is specifically referring to the declaration of 'main', which
is a part of _definition_ of 'main'. When the empty parameter list '()' is used
in a definition, it always means 'no parameters' (equivalent to '(void)'), not
'unspecified parameters'.

...
It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).
...

Only in the declaration that is not a definition. In a definition '()' and
'(void)' mean the same thing - no parameters.

Not quite the same thing. Only the definition with (void)
serves as a prototype.

[Rod Pemberton]

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...

If you'll put together a coherent and consistent set of topicality
guidelines, let us know and we might consider it (no guarantees of
course)

Why are you so paternalistic? Nobody cares what you have to say or what
rules you want to impose upon us. You post enough on your own, that you
should have your own newsgroup... And, you could block me, Kenny, Jacob,
etc. or anyone you're to immature to deal with without comment...
Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:Mf********************@bt.com...

The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss

K&R

C, C90, /and/ C99.

Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements. Do you
actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you understand
that it is the people who have no chance of entering a higher paid field:
physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer, or architect, etc... that
become computer programmers?

I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers. The good
computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart, fair ability to
think by themselves, decent ability to find and correct errors, etc..) were
always easily lost in their own worlds and easily confused by common
everyday events, and usually couldn't _both_ read and implement a
specification...(so it always took two). I still know dozens of programmers
who can't program a register or set and clear bits. And, from conversations
on other NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.
Rod Pemberton

[Dann Corbit]

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:11*************@dscnews2.dcccd.edu...

>
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:Mf********************@bt.com...

>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss

K&R

>C, C90, /and/ C99.

Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements. Do you
actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you understand
that it is the people who have no chance of entering a higher paid field:
physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer, or architect, etc... that
become computer programmers?

Did you know that 10 years ago there were 2,000 millionaires at Microsoft?

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.

I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers. The
good
computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart, fair ability to
think by themselves, decent ability to find and correct errors, etc..)
were
always easily lost in their own worlds and easily confused by common
everyday events, and usually couldn't _both_ read and implement a
specification...(so it always took two). I still know dozens of
programmers
who can't program a register or set and clear bits. And, from
conversations
on other NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.

My experience with programmers is not like yours. I wonder where you have
worked. I have run into a few incompetants, but they are unusual. I also
have a friend who has 500,000 lines of code perfectly memorized in his head.
He's at the other end of the spectrum.

Rod Pemberton

[Morris Dovey]

Rod Pemberton (in 11*************@dscnews2.dcccd.edu) said:

| "Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
| news:Mf********************@bt.com...
|| The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the
|| kind of people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup
|| might discuss K&R C, C90, /and/ C99.
|
| Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements.
| Do you actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

Must be a troll - no one could be this clueless. At least he
recognizes that Richard is at the /other/ end of the bell-shaped
curve...

| What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you
| understand that it is the people who have no chance of entering a
| higher paid field: physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer,
| or architect, etc... that become computer programmers?

Not very convincing assertion in this forum. Perhaps he really is
clueless...

| I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers.
| The good computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart,
| fair ability to think by themselves, decent ability to find and
| correct errors, etc..) were always easily lost in their own worlds
| and easily confused by common everyday events, and usually couldn't
| _both_ read and implement a specification...(so it always took
| two). I still know dozens of programmers who can't program a
| register or set and clear bits. And, from conversations on other
| NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.

Ah, a bottom-feeder (they swim in schools).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

[Richard Heathfield]

Rod Pemberton said:

>
"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote in message
news:Mf********************@bt.com...

>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss

K&R

>C, C90, /and/ C99.

Ha Ha! Hilarious!

You are easily amused.

I don't know how you can make such statements.

I use a keyboard for typing the statement at a computer running a news
client. The news client takes care of posting the message to my news
server.

Do you actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

How could I possibly have any real programming experience, and yet disagree
with you? It just doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

What people do you think become programmers in the US?

I never mentioned the US. I also was not talking about "programmers" in
general, but about "good programmers" - the kind that can spot adjectives,
the kind that realise there's more to the world than the US, the kind that
are capable of thinking clearly, as a good programmer must be able to do.

--
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)

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:

jacob navia said:

>int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short of
a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

>
The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss K&R
C, C90, /and/ C99.

Are you sure? Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C. Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people. Not every one lives C : they use C to live.

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:

>jacob navia said:

>>int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short
of a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

Pedantic? Yes. Unnecessary? I'm not convinced.

>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss
K&R C, C90, /and/ C99.

Are you sure?

Yes.

Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C.

Sure. So do I. I doubt whether I've had to touch more than a dozen or so K&R
C programs, ever. Although I've taken the trouble to learn about C99, I
don't actually use it (except insofar as I have modified my C style to make
my programs legal in C99 as well as in C90). So I, too, only use one
"standard" of C. That doesn't mean I am necessarily confused by the fact
that this newsgroup might discuss programs written in K&R C or C99.

Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people.

Ideally, there would be one standard. This isn't an ideal world. But it is
possible to deal with the fact of multiple standards without making too
much of a fuss about it. And, when I'm giving advice to someone whose name
I don't recognise (and therefore might reasonably be expected to be new to
the group), I tend to play down the whole C90 vs C99 thing - not mentioning
it unless it's relevant, and if it /is/ relevant then only mentioning the
bits I have to, in as non-polemical a way as I can manage. If everybody
were like me, this newsgroup would be a perfect place. :-)

Not every one lives C : they use C to live.

I don't understand. <g,d&r>

--
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)

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:

Richard said:

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

>>jacob navia said:
int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short
of a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

Pedantic? Yes. Unnecessary? I'm not convinced.

Which probably indicates you spend too long programming and not enough
in the real world. The thread had got to a depth where real programmers
were discussing. It is impolite and cocky, IMO, to point out an obvious
typo. After all, good programmers dont get so easily confused ... :-;

>>The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss
K&R C, C90, /and/ C99.

Are you sure?

Yes.

I'm not. One of those beg to differ points I suppose.

>Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C.

Sure. So do I. I doubt whether I've had to touch more than a dozen or so K&R
C programs, ever. Although I've taken the trouble to learn about C99, I
don't actually use it (except insofar as I have modified my C style to make
my programs legal in C99 as well as in C90). So I, too, only use one
"standard" of C. That doesn't mean I am necessarily confused by the fact
that this newsgroup might discuss programs written in K&R C or C99.

Why would it? You've just advertised your knowledge of the others.

>

>Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people.

Ideally, there would be one standard. This isn't an ideal world. But
it is

Yes. We know. This is why this thread is now developing.

possible to deal with the fact of multiple standards without making too
much of a fuss about it. And, when I'm giving advice to someone whose name
I don't recognise (and therefore might reasonably be expected to be new to
the group), I tend to play down the whole C90 vs C99 thing - not mentioning
it unless it's relevant, and if it /is/ relevant then only mentioning the
bits I have to, in as non-polemical a way as I can manage. If
everybody

This is good practice : no doubt about it.

were like me, this newsgroup would be a perfect place. :-)

>Not every one lives C : they use C to live.

I don't understand. <g,d&r>

??

[Default User]

Dann Corbit wrote:

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:11*************@dscnews2.dcccd.edu...

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you
understand that it is the people who have no chance of entering a
higher paid field: physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer,
or architect, etc... that become computer programmers?

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.

Remember that Pemberton is a troll. You're better off killfiling or at
least ignoring his rants.

Naturally, many current programmers were (and are still) engineers.

Brian

[Default User]

Morris Dovey wrote:

Rod Pemberton (in 11*************@dscnews2.dcccd.edu) said:

[some blither]

Must be a troll

Yes. His goal is to disrupt the newsgroup.

Brian

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Rod Pemberton said:

[who cares]

You are easily amused.

Why feed the troll?


Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Rod Pemberton said:

[who cares]

>You are easily amused.

Why feed the troll?

Unlike you, I am not yet convinced that Rod Pemberton is a troll. As I said
back in May:

'It is possible that "troll" is the wrong word for Mr Pemberton, but our
experience of him here in clc has not been a pleasant one. He has certainly
not endeared himself to the group. Many of the people you would probably
consider to be "good posters" have killfiled him. Even amongst those who
have not, I don't know of any who would be particularly keen to sing his
praises. If you want to understand why people here have a certain antipathy
to Mr Pemberton, you could do worse than to research his posting history in
this newsgroup. In my estimation, such research would explain to you why
people are labeling him "troll" (whether or not that label is, strictly
speaking, accurate - which in my view it probably is not).'

I've seen little or nothing since then to make me more, or less, convinced
that Rod Pemberton is trolling the group.

--
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)

[Frederick Gotham]

Dann Corbit posted:

I also have a friend who has 500,000 lines of code perfectly memorized
in his head. He's at the other end of the spectrum.

I'd love to have mental abilities like that!

(I ask this respectfully:

People who have mental abilities like that; are they invariably people
who present some sort of (detrimental) psychological or mental condition?

Just curious. I've seen films like "Rain man" and so forth, but I've never
heard of anyone who had superior mental capabilities and who didn't present
with a condition such as autism.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Richard Heathfield]

Frederick Gotham said:

Dann Corbit posted:

>I also have a friend who has 500,000 lines of code perfectly memorized
in his head. He's at the other end of the spectrum.

I'd love to have mental abilities like that!

(I ask this respectfully:

People who have mental abilities like that; are they invariably people
who present some sort of (detrimental) psychological or mental condition?

I'd have said that the ability to memorise half a million lines of code
indicates a /good/ mind, not a bad one.

Just curious. I've seen films like "Rain man" and so forth, but I've never
heard of anyone who had superior mental capabilities and who didn't
present with a condition such as autism.

I invite you to consider Einstein, Newton, Galileo, da Vinci, Avogadro,
Dalton, Boyle, von Neumann, Feynman, Boole, Shannon, Faraday, Gauss,
Franklin, Cantor, Hilbert, Fermat, Turing, Darwin, Snell, Tesla, Curie,
Davy, Euler, Abel, Lorentz, Feigenbaum, Oppenheimer, ...

Is it your contention that /all/ these people suffered from autism?

--
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)

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Rod Pemberton said:

[who cares]

You are easily amused.

Why feed the troll?

Unlike you, I am not yet convinced that Rod Pemberton is a troll.

Wow.

Brian

[Frederick Gotham]

Richard Heathfield posted:

>Just curious. I've seen films like "Rain man" and so forth, but I've
never heard of anyone who had superior mental capabilities and who
didn't present with a condition such as autism.

I invite you to consider Einstein, Newton, Galileo, da Vinci, Avogadro,
Dalton, Boyle, von Neumann, Feynman, Boole, Shannon, Faraday, Gauss,
Franklin, Cantor, Hilbert, Fermat, Turing, Darwin, Snell, Tesla, Curie,
Davy, Euler, Abel, Lorentz, Feigenbaum, Oppenheimer, ...

Is it your contention that /all/ these people suffered from autism?

No. I expressed that I knew very little about people who had superior
mental capabilities, and then I inquired if such superior mental
capabilities are reserved only for those who have some sort of
mental/psychological condition. It was a genuine inquiry.

I was not referring to actual intelligence by the way, but rather
"superhuman" capabilities such as memorising half a million lines of code,
or calculating 478 to the power of 5 within a few seconds.

There are indeed some great minds among the people you listed above, but
how many of them had "superhuman" mental powers, such as memorising half a
million lines of code?

--

Frederick Gotham

[Richard Heathfield]

Frederick Gotham said:

<snip>

I was not referring to actual intelligence by the way, but rather
"superhuman" capabilities such as memorising half a million lines of code,
or calculating 478 to the power of 5 within a few seconds.

24953960486368 - what's so hard about that?

There are indeed some great minds among the people you listed above, but
how many of them had "superhuman" mental powers, such as memorising half a
million lines of code?

I think we have to take the "half a million lines" thing with a pinch of
salt. After all, imagine how long it would take to verify. You could do
some random sampling, of course, to give you some confidence in the
veracity of the claim, but until you'd tested him on the whole
half-million, would you really believe the claim entirely? And even if you
could verify it at a line a second, spending eight hours a day on it, it
would still take well over a fortnight to do.

I would be more inclined to accept the claim if we interpret it as "knows
the half-million-line code base so well that, asked about any given aspect
of the code, he can take you to the relevant function(s) very quickly".

--
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)

[Keith Thompson]

Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:
[...]

No. I expressed that I knew very little about people who had superior
mental capabilities, and then I inquired if such superior mental
capabilities are reserved only for those who have some sort of
mental/psychological condition. It was a genuine inquiry.

And I'm sure there are newsgroups where that question would be
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.

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <4j************@individual.net>, "Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Rod Pemberton said:
>
[who cares]
>
>You are easily amused.
Why feed the troll?

Unlike you, I am not yet convinced that Rod Pemberton is a troll.

Wow.

I can see that some might want to distinguish between those who
primarily seek to disrupt the newsgroup - whom I would label "troll"
- and those who are merely arrogant, ignorant asses prone to vapid
arguments, such as Rod.

I imagine the real trolls, such as Kenny, are often hard-working folk
dedicated to producing content-free flame-bait posts, and they might
feel slighted by a comparison with others who are honestly, if
clumsily, trying to carry on a real argument. For that matter,
couldn't lumping the two groups together be considered much the sort
of gross generalization that Rod himself committed with his
entertainingly stupid "programmers in the US are failed physicists"
claim?

I imagine many of us[1] arrogant, somewhat-informed asses would not
want to be casually thrown in either of the previous two groups -
should we not show them the same courtesy?

Of course, that's not necessarily any reason to read Rod's postings.
I just offer it as a possible justification for the distinction
Richard is drawing.
[1] The inclusivity or exclusivity of this plural first-person
pronoun is left to the discretion of the reader.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

The lecturer was detailing a proof on the blackboard. He started to say,
"From the above it is obvious that ...". Then he stepped back and thought
deeply for a while. Then he left the room. We waited. Five minutes
later he returned smiling and said, "Yes, it is obvious", and continued
to outline the proof. -- John O'Gorman

[Nick Keighley]

CBFalconer wrote:

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Default User posted:

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change
in subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

It doesn't, in proper news readers that use the 'references' header
field correctly. Some stupid systems, such as Google, ignore that
field and depend on the subject header alone.

actually google fixed that some time ago
--
Nick Keighley

[Rod Pemberton]

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:4j************@individual.net...

Dann Corbit wrote:

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bitfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:11*************@dscnews2.dcccd.edu...

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you
understand that it is the people who have no chance of entering a
higher paid field: physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer,
or architect, etc... that become computer programmers?

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.

Remember that Pemberton is a troll.

Mr. Rodenborn it appears you _still_ don't know the difference between a
troll (someone who intends to incite for the joy of a negative response) and
someone stating the facts of their experiences (which may be totally
different to yours or even radical or unacceptable from your narrow
perspective...).

You're better off killfiling or at least ignoring his rants.

Are you able to do so without comment? It appears not. From your Google
post history, the entire world is comprised of trolls, except one: you.
Rod Pemberton