A good compiler

[Ajinkya]

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
[...]

There are many FOSS Detotees on here who push FOSS without declaring
an interest. If you want to stop Navia then all those recommending
all the other free SW should stop as well.

I note that in this NG if it is not GCC then it is OT. Despite GCC
is not C but a C-like language compiler.

I think you overestimate the extent to which gcc-specific discussions
are tolerated here.

Detailed discussions of gcc-specific externsions are clearly off-topic
(unless, say, we're talking about whether they're valid extensions as
permitted by C99 4p6). Discussions of how to persuade gcc to behave
as a conforming C90 or C95 compiler, or as a partially conforming C99
compiler, are probably close to the edge, but they don't bother me; to
the extent that such knowledge helps programmers who happen to use gcc
understand what is and isn't standard C, it's a good thing.

Just one example: gcc allows pointer arithmetic on void*. I've
mentioned this here a number of times, but only to point out that it's
non-standard, or to explain why gcc isn't diagnosing some invalid
code, or (sometimes) to complain that it's a bad idea.

On the other hand, lengthy advocacy of gcc's non-standard "qfloat"
type, or of its support for operator overloading, is clearly
off-topic. Oh, wait, it's not gcc that has those features, it's
lcc-win32, isn't it?

If one of the authors of gcc spent time here pushing gcc's statement
expressions, local labels, labels as values, nested functions, etc.,
without regard to the fact that they are not standard C, I believe
that person would receive as much criticism as jacob navia does here
for his similar advocacy of lcc-win32's extensions. But they don't do
that.

I have no objection to lcc-win32 as a C compiler. I have no objection
to lcc-win32 as a C-with-extensions compiler. I object to its
developer's behavior in this newsgroup, particularly to his stubborn
refusal to understand just what we're objecting to. I suggest you may
be viewing these disputes through the filter of your own personal
biases (as, no doubt, we all do).

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[jacob navia]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
[...]

>There are many FOSS Detotees on here who push FOSS without declaring
an interest. If you want to stop Navia then all those recommending
all the other free SW should stop as well.

I note that in this NG if it is not GCC then it is OT. Despite GCC
is not C but a C-like language compiler.

I think you overestimate the extent to which gcc-specific discussions
are tolerated here.

We had a recent mega-thread about how to avoid a gcc warning.
After dozens of messages I mentioned lcc-win32 and it was immediately
answered with "off topic off topic" even if the whole thread
was off topic but none of the traffic police would care to notice.

Detailed discussions of gcc-specific externsions are clearly off-topic
(unless, say, we're talking about whether they're valid extensions as
permitted by C99 4p6). Discussions of how to persuade gcc to behave
as a conforming C90 or C95 compiler, or as a partially conforming C99
compiler, are probably close to the edge, but they don't bother me; to
the extent that such knowledge helps programmers who happen to use gcc
understand what is and isn't standard C, it's a good thing.

We have had this discussion a number of times. In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C, and the possible evolution of
C.

You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Just one example: gcc allows pointer arithmetic on void*. I've
mentioned this here a number of times, but only to point out that it's
non-standard, or to explain why gcc isn't diagnosing some invalid
code, or (sometimes) to complain that it's a bad idea.

On the other hand, lengthy advocacy of gcc's non-standard "qfloat"
type, or of its support for operator overloading, is clearly
off-topic. Oh, wait, it's not gcc that has those features, it's
lcc-win32, isn't it?

Yes, and I think they show a way of enhancing C, and if you dislike it
tell people your opinion. But I will go on telling MY opinion of it
even if you do not agree with it.

If one of the authors of gcc spent time here pushing gcc's statement
expressions, local labels, labels as values, nested functions, etc.,
without regard to the fact that they are not standard C, I believe
that person would receive as much criticism as jacob navia does here
for his similar advocacy of lcc-win32's extensions. But they don't do
that.

Yes, they do not give a damm about C. They are C++ only, and C is
not very high in their priority list. They get paid for other types
of development, and the evolution of C is for them indifferent.

I have no objection to lcc-win32 as a C compiler. I have no objection
to lcc-win32 as a C-with-extensions compiler. I object to its
developer's behavior in this newsgroup, particularly to his stubborn
refusal to understand just what we're objecting to.

I DO understand what you say. I just do NOT AGREE WITH IT!
I suggest you may

be viewing these disputes through the filter of your own personal
biases (as, no doubt, we all do).

Exactly

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

>I think you overestimate the extent to which gcc-specific discussions
are tolerated here.

We had a recent mega-thread about how to avoid a gcc warning.

Such threads are off-topic. Did you point out that the gcc discussion
was off-topic? If not, you can hardly complain that nobody else did.

After dozens of messages I mentioned lcc-win32 and it was immediately
answered with "off topic off topic"

And so it is.

even if the whole thread
was off topic but none of the traffic police would care to notice.

Did *you* point out that it was off-topic? If not, you can hardly
complain that nobody else did.

<snip>

In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C,

It is.

and the possible evolution of C.

No, that's what comp.std.c is for.

You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Yes, they do, and you have the right not to pay any attention, and they
have the right to point out that you are misusing the newsgroup by
pushing your product here, and you have the right not to agree, and
they have the right to treat you like a pariah and recommend that
people avoid your compiler, and you have the right not to be happy
about that, and so on. Add them up and take them away, and you'll come
out with a positive, or a negative, value to advertising your product's
misfeatures in this group. Presumably you think it's a positive value
despite the constant criticisms that you receive as a result, or you
wouldn't do it. Spammers use the same reasoning, of course. Stuff
community relations - you have a *product* to ship.

Yes, and I think they show a way of enhancing C, and if you dislike it
tell people your opinion. But I will go on telling MY opinion of it
even if you do not agree with it.

And I'll go on telling mine, which is that you are abusing this
newsgroup with your constant off-topic discussions of compiler
extensions. Your activities draw much criticism here, as do your
misunderstandings about C, which inspire no confidence that you are
competent to maintain a C compiler, let alone write one.

In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy. Still,
it's a big foot and you seem to have plenty of ammunition, so fire away
if you must.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard]

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

Keith Thompson wrote:

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

>>There are many FOSS Detotees on here who push FOSS without declaring
an interest. If you want to stop Navia then all those recommending
all the other free SW should stop as well.

I note that in this NG if it is not GCC then it is OT. Despite GCC
is not C but a C-like language compiler.

I think you overestimate the extent to which gcc-specific discussions
are tolerated here.

We had a recent mega-thread about how to avoid a gcc warning.
After dozens of messages I mentioned lcc-win32 and it was immediately
answered with "off topic off topic" even if the whole thread
was off topic but none of the traffic police would care to notice.

>Detailed discussions of gcc-specific externsions are clearly off-topic
(unless, say, we're talking about whether they're valid extensions as
permitted by C99 4p6). Discussions of how to persuade gcc to behave
as a conforming C90 or C95 compiler, or as a partially conforming C99
compiler, are probably close to the edge, but they don't bother me; to
the extent that such knowledge helps programmers who happen to use gcc
understand what is and isn't standard C, it's a good thing.

We have had this discussion a number of times. In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C, and the possible evolution of
C.

Gotta say, I do too. There is no other C group for less "restricted"
programmers of C to go. Having said that, I just mean slightly OT should
be tolerated to a degree. We don't need Santosh racing Default user to
see who can post "OT" warnings first - it's really rather childish and
makes the signal to noise ratio intolerable at times. I realise a couple
of the usual pedantic usenet warriors have me labelled as a "troll"
already - but that simply is not true. It's just that I'll be damned to
see them constantly bullying and poking when its not necessary - and
they do need to be reminded that they are in a public forum and that
their behaviour and the tone of their replies sets the standards by
which others should be judged.

>
You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Regulars do have a right to try and keep things reasonably on track -
but a diverting thread should be fine - if you dont like it, killfile
it.

>

>Just one example: gcc allows pointer arithmetic on void*. I've
mentioned this here a number of times, but only to point out that it's
non-standard, or to explain why gcc isn't diagnosing some invalid
code, or (sometimes) to complain that it's a bad idea.

On the other hand, lengthy advocacy of gcc's non-standard "qfloat"
type, or of its support for operator overloading, is clearly
off-topic. Oh, wait, it's not gcc that has those features, it's
lcc-win32, isn't it?

Yes, and I think they show a way of enhancing C, and if you dislike it
tell people your opinion. But I will go on telling MY opinion of it
even if you do not agree with it.

>If one of the authors of gcc spent time here pushing gcc's statement
expressions, local labels, labels as values, nested functions, etc.,
without regard to the fact that they are not standard C, I believe
that person would receive as much criticism as jacob navia does here
for his similar advocacy of lcc-win32's extensions. But they don't do
that.

Yes, they do not give a damm about C. They are C++ only, and C is
not very high in their priority list. They get paid for other types
of development, and the evolution of C is for them indifferent.

And pretty much complete.

>

>I have no objection to lcc-win32 as a C compiler. I have no objection
to lcc-win32 as a C-with-extensions compiler. I object to its
developer's behavior in this newsgroup, particularly to his stubborn
refusal to understand just what we're objecting to.

I DO understand what you say. I just do NOT AGREE WITH IT!

Good man. Stick to your guns.

>
I suggest you may

>be viewing these disputes through the filter of your own personal
biases (as, no doubt, we all do).

Exactly

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>
In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy. Still,
it's a big foot and you seem to have plenty of ammunition, so fire away
if you must.

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above must
be the most ironic I have ever read. Do you ever stop and read your
own posts?

[Chris Hills]

In article <wN*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>jacob navia said:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

>>I think you overestimate the extent to which gcc-specific discussions
are tolerated here.

We had a recent mega-thread about how to avoid a gcc warning.

Such threads are off-topic. Did you point out that the gcc discussion
was off-topic? If not, you can hardly complain that nobody else did.

I did not complain. Why would I? I would prefer the netnainies to stop
shouting OT so often. My point was that it seems to be some what
distorted.

>After dozens of messages I mentioned lcc-win32 and it was immediately
answered with "off topic off topic"

And so it is.

But no more so than the GCC which is not branded as OT. Personally i
think we need a little more tolerance. GCC is as commercial as
Lcc-win32 so leave them both alone don't just pick on one.

>In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C,

It is.

>and the possible evolution of C.

No, that's what comp.std.c is for.

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

>You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Yes, they do,

No they don't

and you have the right not to pay any attention, and they
have the right to point out that you are misusing the newsgroup by
pushing your product here,

CRAP. No more than anyone else mentioning any other product. Or any
member of the FOSS community pushing FOSS

and you have the right not to agree, and
they have the right to treat you like a pariah and recommend that
people avoid your compiler,

No they don't

>Yes, and I think they show a way of enhancing C, and if you dislike it
tell people your opinion. But I will go on telling MY opinion of it
even if you do not agree with it.

And I'll go on telling mine, which is that you are abusing this
newsgroup

No he isn't

>with your constant off-topic discussions of compiler
extensions.

It is no more OT than mentioning any other compiler.

>In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy.

Possibly. However it is not up to you to police it.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Bos]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:

In article <wN*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

jacob navia said:

and the possible evolution of C.

No, that's what comp.std.c is for.

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

Go tell that to the real experts over in that newsgroup, and see how
many tears in your ego you come away with.

Richard

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>
In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy.
Still, it's a big foot and you seem to have plenty of ammunition, so
fire away if you must.

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above
must be the most ironic I have ever read.

If, as you claim, you are a relatively new[1], and intermittent, poster
here, it is perhaps understandable that you don't understand the
dynamics of the comp.lang.c newsgroup. So let me attempt to explain it
for you, and let's start out by ensuring that the focus of this
explanation is clear. I am specifically answering your claim that my
words (that Mr Navia's posting style makes him his own worst enemy) are
ironic. They are not in fact ironic at all. Why not? Read on to find
out.

Here we go then. I do not use comp.lang.c for commercial advantage. I
use it because I think it worthwhile to help people to learn about C,
and because I find C discussions interesting. If someone here decides,
on the basis of my tone, code, or advice, that I'm some kind of
self-opinionated idiot who likes the sound of his own typing, then
that's up to them, and I don't care. I won't lose any income as a
result.

Financially, you see, Usenet is a cost to me rather than a benefit. It's
something I do because I think it benefits the C programming community,
not because I think it can make me money. I observe topicality rules
fairly closely (albeit not religiously) because I can see that the only
logical alternative is chaos (Death of Usenet predicted, film at 11,
etc). And I try to keep my advice correct because I think incorrect
advice is a disservice to others. But if some people here gain a
negative impression of what I write because they don't like my tone,
code, or advice, I lose nothing by it. So from my point of view, even
if all my articles were badly-conceived, badly-written, off-topic,
incorrect, and even offensive, I wouldn't actually suffer any financial
disadvantage as a result. I don't write articles like that, of course,
but I could if I wanted to, and I would *still* not be my "own worst
enemy".

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.
It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can. With his steady stream of off-topic answers to C questions in
which he pushes his language extensions, it is clear that he is
attempting to gain lcc-win32 users rather than to offer independent,
accurate advice that is independent of any particular compiler. This is
not an honorable way to behave in a technical newsgroup. If he wants to
advertise his compiler here, let him do it in his sig block. That's
(partly) what they're /for/ - as a side-channel that can be used to
communicate information that need not have any bearing on the newsgroup
topic.

It does not help his cause that, even when he tries to reply to C
questions here with C answers (as opposed to lcc-win32 answers), he
very often gets the answers /wrong/. This does not give us a great deal
of confidence in the correctness of the compiler he claims to have
written.

This is what I mean by Mr Navia being his own worst enemy. The articles
he writes touting lcc-win32 draw constant criticism about his attempts
to exploit the group for commercial gain, and his often incorrect C
advice damages public confidence in his code. If he kept his articles
topical, and took more care to answer correctly, both these negative
factors would just disappear.

Do you ever stop and read your own posts?

Yes. I think they're rather good, actually.
[1] I seem to recall that, hitherto, you have claimed otherwise, but I
could be wrong and I can't find a reference. Perhaps you would care to
clarify whether you would prefer to be considered a newbie who doesn't
understand the group dynamics or an oldbie who ought to know better.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <wN*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>>jacob navia said:

>>Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

>>>I think you overestimate the extent to which gcc-specific
discussions are tolerated here.

We had a recent mega-thread about how to avoid a gcc warning.

Such threads are off-topic. Did you point out that the gcc discussion
was off-topic? If not, you can hardly complain that nobody else did.

I did not complain. Why would I?

Because it's off-topic. If we let topicality go, the group will be
damaged, as comp.lang.c++ regulars with a few years under their belt
will testify.

I would prefer the netnainies to
stop shouting OT so often. My point was that it seems to be some what
distorted.

It shouldn't be; gcc threads are off-topic here. Questions about gcc
ought to be referred to an appropriate newsgroup. I see no harm in
mentioning gcc in a comparative thread ("The Standard says /this/, and
gcc interprets it /that/ way, whereas Visual C does /such-and-such/",
yadayada), or perhaps as a frinstance, but if the compiler is central
to the discussion, then the discussion is OT.

>>After dozens of messages I mentioned lcc-win32 and it was
immediately answered with "off topic off topic"

And so it is.

But no more so than the GCC which is not branded as OT.

Then brand it, my dear chap.

Personally i
think we need a little more tolerance. GCC is as commercial as
Lcc-win32 so leave them both alone don't just pick on one.

I don't want to pick on anyone. I just think this group should be for
discussing the language, not implementations of that language or
extensions to that language. Both gcc and lcc-win32 have their own
newsgroups. Let such discussions be conducted in those groups. That's
what they're *for*. And this group is for discussing C.

>>In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C,

It is.

>>and the possible evolution of C.

No, that's what comp.std.c is for.

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

Are you saying that proposed changes to the Standard are not topical in
comp.std.c? I think that will come as news to the comp.std.c people.
Still, maybe you're right - feel free to take it up with them if you
like.

>>You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Yes, they do,

No they don't

Are you saying that they don't have the same freedom of speech that you
enjoy? I'm fascinated.

>and you have the right not to pay any attention, and they
have the right to point out that you are misusing the newsgroup by
pushing your product here,

CRAP. No more than anyone else mentioning any other product.

And no less.

Or any member of the FOSS community pushing FOSS

If members of the FOSS community push FOSS here rather than discuss C,
they are off-topic. Feel free to point this out to them if you care
enough. And if you don't care enough, why are you complaining?

>and you have the right not to agree, and
they have the right to treat you like a pariah and recommend that
people avoid your compiler,

No they don't

What happened to freedom of speech?

>>Yes, and I think they show a way of enhancing C, and if you dislike
it tell people your opinion. But I will go on telling MY opinion of
it even if you do not agree with it.

And I'll go on telling mine, which is that you are abusing this
newsgroup

No he isn't

Yes, he is.

>>with your constant off-topic discussions of compiler
extensions.

It is no more OT than mentioning any other compiler.

And no less.

>>In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy.

Possibly. However it is not up to you to police it.

I agree. It is, however, up to me to express my opinion, just as it is
up to you to express yours. I do so, and you do so, and I don't see the
problem here.

If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving and
incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish for
*his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>
If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving and
incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish for
*his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

Let Jacob worry about his *own* sake.

And you worry about yours.

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>
If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving
and incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish
for *his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority.

Wrong. I'm expressing *my* opinion, just as you are expressing yours.

Whether other people share my opinion is not my decision, but theirs.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <6j************@gmail.com>, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>Dick Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>
In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy. Still,
it's a big foot and you seem to have plenty of ammunition, so fire away
if you must.

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above must
be the most ironic I have ever read. Do you ever stop and read your
own posts?

These people are all budding/wannabee politicians. They are all gunning
for positions in the Bush administration.

To be able to just lie straight out like this, with not even a hint as
to how ridiculous they look, is viewed by them as a skill. Scooter
Libbys in training...

[Martin Ambuhl]

Richard wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving and
incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish for
*his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

You either have not bothered to read this newsgroup or are very thick.
The only other choice is one that I don't believe: that you are
purposely lying. For well over 20 years, with a huge roster of regular
posters coming and going, has always maintained high standards for
topicality. It has always had a small number of destructive posters who
have tried to undermine it. You seem to be in that latter group. It is
because the overwhelming majority of posters have *always* resisted such
nihilism that this newsgroup has maintained itself while others have
fallen into the usenet cesspool.

Your attack as "jobsworths" on professional programmers who are regulars
here only because they hope to help people is unworthy of any civil
person. Please learn some manners.

Let Jacob worry about his *own* sake.

And you worry about yours.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <c7************@gmail.com>, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>
If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving and
incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish for
*his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

Let Jacob worry about his *own* sake.

And you worry about yours.

Exactly. Well put, sir!

[Chris Hills]

In article <7J*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>Richard said:

>>It does not help his cause that, even when he tries to reply to C
questions here with C answers (as opposed to lcc-win32 answers), he
very often gets the answers /wrong/. This does not give us a great
deal of confidence in the correctness of the compiler he claims to
have written.

Who is "us"?

C programmers.

This is NOT correct. You only speak for your self and may be a couple of
others. You do NOT and can not claim to speak for "C programmers"
because you don't.

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

[Chris Hills]

In article <RP*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>Richard said:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>>
In short, your posting style here makes you your own worst enemy.
Still, it's a big foot and you seem to have plenty of ammunition, so
fire away if you must.

As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above
must be the most ironic I have ever read.

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

>It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can.

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

With his steady stream of off-topic answers to C questions in
which he pushes his language extensions, it is clear that he is
attempting to gain lcc-win32 users rather than to offer independent,
accurate advice that is independent of any particular compiler.

Interesting. There are no C compilers (we have been here before) very
few actually fully implement ISO C9899:1999 and ALL have their own
extensions.

So the C you want to discuss is not actually used but any real world
compiler is OT?

If you want to discuss ONLY standard C then go to comp.lang.std.c
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <f8**********@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack
<ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrites

>In article <c7************@gmail.com>, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>>
If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving and
incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish for
*his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

Let Jacob worry about his *own* sake.

And you worry about yours.

Exactly. Well put, sir!

Actually agree with you for once.

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

[Richard]

Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.netwrites:

Richard wrote:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>If Mr Navia wishes to continue to portray himself as a self-serving
and incompetent fool in comp.lang.c, that is his right, but I wish
for *his* sake, as well as everyone else's, that he would stop.

And here is your problem. You think you are talking for the majority. I
doubt very much if you are. You are talking for a core group of about 6
hardcore posters who think they own the group.

You either have not bothered to read this newsgroup or are very
thick. The only other choice is one that I don't believe: that you are

Well, neither actually. Do you have a third option?

purposely lying. For well over 20 years, with a huge roster of

Oh. You did. The "lying" option. How am I "lying" when I say that twenty
"OT" replies to one post is a bit much?

regular posters coming and going, has always maintained high standards
for topicality. It has always had a small number of destructive
posters who have tried to undermine it. You seem to be in that latter
group. It is because the overwhelming majority of posters have

How, in any way, am I undermining anything? Do you see me criticising
helpful posts? No.

*always* resisted such nihilism that this newsgroup has maintained
itself while others have fallen into the usenet cesspool.

Like where? C++ group has no where near the level of self importance as
this group and is well controlled.

>
Your attack as "jobsworths" on professional programmers who are
regulars here only because they hope to help people is unworthy of any
civil person. Please learn some manners.

I am a professional programmer. My manners are fine. Interestingly I am
posting about the bad manners and general arrogant nature of the core
little clique here. My "attack", if you insist on calling it that, is
not on "professional programmers who wish to help", but on self
important smug socially dysfunctional idiots who cant help themselves
with their constant rebukes and petty put downs.

There are plenty of people here are here to help and not just to posture
and pose.

>

>Let Jacob worry about his *own* sake.

And you worry about yours.

Thanks for leaving it in.

And as usual, feel free to disagree.

[Keith Thompson]

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

We have had this discussion a number of times. In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C, and the possible evolution of
C.

Yes, it's a forum to discuss C. Discussions of the possible evolution
of C are better conducted in comp.std.c.

If you discuss the extensions offered by your compiler in the context
of suggesting them as future changes to the language standard, then
that's not too bad. As I said, comp.std.c would probably be better,
but I've discussed possible language changes here myself. But you
often push lcc-win32's extensions *without* proposing them as changes
to the standard, as specific solutions to questioners' problems.

The C-like language processed by lcc-win32 is no more topical here
than the C-like language known as "C++".

You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Of course we do.

[...]

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]

>We have had this discussion a number of times. In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C, and the possible evolution of
C.

Yes, it's a forum to discuss C. Discussions of the possible evolution
of C are better conducted in comp.std.c.

If you discuss the extensions offered by your compiler in the context
of suggesting them as future changes to the language standard, then
that's not too bad. As I said, comp.std.c would probably be better,
but I've discussed possible language changes here myself. But you
often push lcc-win32's extensions *without* proposing them as changes
to the standard, as specific solutions to questioners' problems.

The C-like language processed by lcc-win32

And every other "c " compiler on the planet

is no more topical here
than the C-like language known as "C++".

No compilers are fully C99 compliant and all have their own extensions.
You appear to want to discuss a language that is not implemented

>You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Of course we do.

No you have no more right to say it is wrong than I have to say it is
right
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <7J*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>>Richard said:

>>>It does not help his cause that, even when he tries to reply to C
questions here with C answers (as opposed to lcc-win32 answers), he
very often gets the answers /wrong/. This does not give us a great
deal of confidence in the correctness of the compiler he claims to
have written.

Who is "us"?

C programmers.

This is NOT correct. You only speak for your self and may be a couple
of others. You do NOT and can not claim to speak for "C programmers"
because you don't.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm simply using common sense. Still,
let's explore it, shall we? Is it your claim, then, that there are C
programmers for whom Mr Navia's frequent C-related mistakes *do* give
them a great deal of confidence in the compiler he claims to have
written? If so, then I am happy to re-cast my statement so as to
include only *bright* C programmers.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <RP*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

<snip>

>>It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can.

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

Well, you'll have to take that up with Mr Navia. Perhaps you're right,
and he is mistaken in thinking that he charges for his product. From
his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence." [sic]

Is he wrong, then?

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:42:29 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above
must be the most ironic I have ever read.

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

>>It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can.

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Interesting. There are no C compilers (we have been here before) very
few actually fully implement ISO C9899:1999 and ALL have their own
extensions.

So the C you want to discuss is not actually used but any real world
compiler is OT?

Few compilers support C99 fully; many support C90 well enough to be
considered conforming. Discussing extensions for networking or 3D
graphics doesn't magically become topical simply because one can find a
compiler which doesn't fully support a given C standard.

If you want to discuss ONLY standard C then go to comp.lang.std.c

Why? This group is for discussing C, such discussions belong here.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's free
for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have to
buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

No compilers are fully C99 compliant and all have their own
extensions. You appear to want to discuss a language that is not
implemented

Um, that's not quite true. Firstly, by longstanding convention, K&R C is
still topical here, and so is C90, despite the existence of a later
standard. Secondly, there are actually a handful of C99-conforming
products out there. See http://www.peren.com/pages/cvsa_isocvpl.htm for
details.

>>You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Of course we do.

No you have no more right to say it is wrong than I have to say it is
right

But neither does he have any *less* right.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>
"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's free
for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have to
buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

Linux 64 costs around 300-400 Euros (Mandrake distribution).
Suse is even more expensive, at 799 US$. Redhat enterprise
is US$ 1500.

To ask a question to a technical support in RedHat I was recently
asked for US$ 25,000 by their commercial representative.

But many people here keep telling that linux is free, and I would agree
with them.

Linux is free, if you do not need any support, and you are in
a personal context.

But this, is normal for linux but a greedy personal profit for
everybody else.

Only linux people can earn money. All others should work for
nothing and live from thin air.

I have a wife and two kids. Sorry, but they need real money.

I live from my work, and I am not stealing anybody.

Is this clear?

jacob

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open
source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.
It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you
have to have to buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say
otherwise. Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather
than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

It is good that it is free for non-commercial use, but the fact remains
that you charge for it (for professional use). Nobody is complaining
about this, however. Read the thread to find out what they are
complaining about.

>
Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

But RedHat are not constantly pushing Cygwin in comp.lang.c.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=]

jacob navia wrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to
have to buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

You are mistaken. Cygwin is free for both non-commercial and commercial use.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:05:37 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)

It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main(void)
{
char buff[32];
strcpy( buff, "Hello" );
printf( "%s\n", buff );
return 0;
}
Compile (F7 in the IDE). Result?

test.c(7) : warning C4996: 'strcpy': This function or variable may be
unsafe. Consider using strcpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use
_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. See online help for details.

Excuse me? A compiler that makes me jump through hoops just to compile
_correct_ code without whining and bitching? It's broken. Badly, badly
broken.

Same thing for, oh, fopen. Or any number of other perfectly good standard
library functions. The compiler is screwed, from design to inception.
That it's wrapped in a pretty box - I sorta like the IDE - doesn't make it
any more useful for the very purpose it exists for - to compile code.

[santosh]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

[snips]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:05:37 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>>Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)

It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main(void)
{
char buff[32];
strcpy( buff, "Hello" );
printf( "%s\n", buff );
return 0;
}
Compile (F7 in the IDE). Result?

test.c(7) : warning C4996: 'strcpy': This function or variable may be
unsafe. Consider using strcpy_s instead. To disable deprecation, use
_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. See online help for details.

Excuse me? A compiler that makes me jump through hoops just to compile
_correct_ code without whining and bitching? It's broken. Badly, badly
broken.

That's just your opinion. The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what are
required by it.

[user923005]

On Jul 26, 2:52 am, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:
[snip]

No. Comp.std.c is for the discussion of standard C

No, actually news:comp.std.c is for discussions about the C standard.
That's not the same thing as a discussions about standard C.
[snip]

[Chris Hills]

In article <QL******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>Chris Hills said:

>In article <RP*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

<snip>

>>>It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can.

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

Well, you'll have to take that up with Mr Navia. Perhaps you're right,
and he is mistaken in thinking that he charges for his product. From
his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence." [sic]

Is he wrong, then?

It's free to use otherwise. I am sure you can use Linux for free or
pay for support.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <iv************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>[snips]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:42:29 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>>As a relatively new, and intermittent, poster here your words above
must be the most ironic I have ever read.
Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,

It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

>It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

So what?

>>>It is in his financial interest to gain as many lcc-win32 users as he
can.

No it's not. No more than it is in anyone's financial interest to push
Linux or GCC.

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

It is freeware it is just not FOSS there are many types of free
software they all have various licenses including GCC .

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

[Chris Hills]

In article <n5************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware,

It is. It is just not FOSS
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <ss************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>[snips]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:24:24 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>>You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

For someone around here to stop lying by saying "It's free" when it isn't;
it is only occasionally free.

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

I think you will find it is usually free and occasionally paid for.

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

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]

>>We have had this discussion a number of times. In short:
I see this group as a formu to discuss C, and the possible evolution of
C.

Yes, it's a forum to discuss C. Discussions of the possible evolution
of C are better conducted in comp.std.c.

If you discuss the extensions offered by your compiler in the context
of suggesting them as future changes to the language standard, then
that's not too bad. As I said, comp.std.c would probably be better,
but I've discussed possible language changes here myself. But you
often push lcc-win32's extensions *without* proposing them as changes
to the standard, as specific solutions to questioners' problems.

The C-like language processed by lcc-win32

And every other "c " compiler on the planet

No, the C-like language I'm referring to is C plus a plethora of
lcc-win32-specific extensions, such as "qfloat", operator overloading,
and whatever else jacob has decided to implement. Again, I'm not
criticizing him for implementing those extensions, merely for
insisting on discussing them here.

>is no more topical here
than the C-like language known as "C++".

No compilers are fully C99 compliant and all have their own
extensions. You appear to want to discuss a language that is not
implemented

See my previous comments about the continued topicality of C90,
pre-ANSI K&R C, etc.

>>You, the "regulars" and all the traffic police have no right to say
to me if that is ok or not.

Of course we do.

No you have no more right to say it is wrong than I have to say it is
right

Agreed. We both have that right. Or are you advocating censorship?
If not, please explain how "no right to say" differs from advocating
censorship.

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <QL******************************@bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

<snip>

>>Perhaps you're right, and [Mr Navia] is mistaken in thinking that he
charges for his product. From his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence."
[sic]

Is he wrong, then?

It's free to use otherwise.

Oh dear, Chris - so you're saying it's free except when it isn't? Fine,
but I think we kind of knew that already. Clearly, he derives (or is
trying to derive) an income from it.

I am sure you can use Linux for free or pay for support.

But Linus Torvalds doesn't push Linux in this newsgroup. Nor do RedHat
or any of the other people who stand to make money from its sale or
support.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

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

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

But it's not free for professional use, which means that you stand to
benefit personally by advertising it here.

It doesn't really matter much to me one way or the other. Your
financial interest in lcc-win32 isn't the main reason for my objection
to your advertisements.

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 26/07/07 17:14:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>
"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to
have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

This was in comparison to gcc which is free for both commercial and
non-commercial use. It also means that if I or many others here were to
make serious use of it then it would *not* be free for us, so we rightly
consider it to not be free.
--
Flash Gordon

[Flash Gordon]

Harald van Dijk wrote, On 26/07/07 18:00:

jacob navia wrote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)
"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to
have to buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

You are mistaken. Cygwin is free for both non-commercial and commercial use.

Unless they have changed the license since I investigated it a few years
back it depends on the type of commercial use. You cannot distribute a
closed source program linked against the Cygwin DLL without paying a
license fee.

Both Jacob and RedHat are allowed to make money from selling their
products of course.
--
Flash Gordon

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:40:57 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Ben Bacarisse
<be********@bsb.me.ukwrote:

>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

>In article <lc*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>>>If they have a commercial interest in it,

No.... An interest (or bias) whether commercial or not.

That is not practical. We cannot declare all our biases. Most will
be unconscious biases anyway.

Sure, but there's a difference between a bias against K&R style
braces, or warm beer, and an undeclared financial interest in a
product you're recommending. I sincerely hope most people here can see
the difference.

>If I say "X is a great supplier of Y" I am obviously biased (I am
offering not evidence or argument) but I think it makes a difference
to the way one reads this bias if I then say "BTW, I get 10% of every
new sale of X makes".

Quite

>If am obliged, as you would have me be, to add
"BTW, I am an irrational devotee of the way X does things" I don't
think readers get any more than they had already.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this. You /do/ realise the
relationship between JN and lcc-win32 I presume?
--
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 Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:46:48 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>Chris Hills said:

>Incidentally I have no idea how good or bad lcc-win32 is. That is not
what is being argued here. It is just being smeared by FOSS people

No, it isn't. The criticism is not against lcc-win32 but against its
promotion in a technical newsgroup by the one person who has most to
gain from its widespread use. And it isn't just "FOSS people" who are
making this criticism.

Please check your facts before tarring all of Mr Navia's many critics
with the same brush.

Here Here. Chris' comment above is outrageous.
--
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 Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>Chris Hills wrote:

>In article <4b********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.netwrites

>>On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:15:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

Malcolm McLean said:
>
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.

Why?

Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)

>>
It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.

Perhaps you should learn to read sometime. It might assist you with
understanding what people say, so that you can avoid telling
outrageous lies and trying to stir up trouble.

>windows is from the evil empire Chris!

Take a quick guess as to what operating system I'm running Agent (paid
for) on, and what my normal compiler is on this, my main workstation.
Ah, heck,. here's a small hint even you idiots should be able to get;

Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 12.00.8168 for
80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984-1998. All rights reserved.

usage: cl [ option... ] filename... [ /link linkoption... ]

>Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.
--
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 Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:58:35 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>Richard wrote:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

>>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:38:51 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

gdb is a pile of shit.

Hardly. gdb simply isn't a visual gui debugger. If you want that,
there are tools for linux.

Nearly all of which are rubbish. Eclipse might change that. DDD is a joke.

I have used them all (kdevelop debugger, ddd, etc etc)

I notice you only mention free tools. Apparently you're happy to pay
for tools on Windows, but somehow won't examine the same marketplace
on Linux.

>and they all are
just GUI front ends to gdb, presenting you with a SUBSET of the
capabilities of gdb.

Whatddaya expect when you obtain free tools which are just frontends
for gdb?

>I never received even an acknowledgment that my fix was received.

Maybe you wrote them a mail similar to some of your posts here, and
they took an instant dislike to you.

Or maybe they read about you in CLC and decided to treat your code
with a pinch of salt?
--
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

[Ian Collins]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

I thought it was Area 51.

--
Ian Collins.

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

>
Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Other free operating systems (with better development environments) are
available.

--
Ian Collins.

[Default User]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:59:53 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what
are required by it.

Sure - but I suspect most people here would agree that any compiler
that emits diagnostics with valid code is screwed up.

Err, define "valid code" first.


Brian

[Denis Kasak]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <n5************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware,

It is. It is just not FOSS

Apparently, you know better than the author.

--
Denis Kasak

[Shawn the Rock]

hey,Ajinkya :
Probaly if you need a looks "good" IDE that VC++ 6 is a good choice
for you.But as my favorite, vim+gcc+gdb is pretty good even though I
have to using VC6 for work everyday.

Good luck!

regards
Shawn