468,463 Members | 1,988 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,463 developers. It's quick & easy.

Exceptions in C/C++

Hello,

I have question concerning such code:

__try
{
...
} __except(EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER)
{
printf("Exception code: %.8x\n", GetExceptionCode());
}
Is C related code? Or maybe C++?

opexoc
Dec 7 '07
142 3389
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they
would like it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated
that they wished the group to continue to restrict itself to
K&R C and the various ISO standards.

This is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will
really fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when
your actions in this group (constant sniping, constant "you're
off topic" posts) give the lie to this claim day after day?

Whether Mr Heathfield is "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal"
in his view on topicality is largely irrelevant; there *was* a
lengthy thread, where Mr Heathfield asked the contributors to the
group what they preferred to be topical. Considered on a basis of
one poster, one vote, the consensus of the group is almost
overwhelmingly in favor of the narrowly-defined topicality of K&R
and ISO C. Further, it was conducted in public, so you can go
back and read the votes and the rationales behind them.

I recommend you search for it on Google Groups; you might be
enlightened.
This is a more than adequate response for the general doubter.
However Mr. Twink is a known troll.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 10 '07 #51
Charlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrites:
>>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATPerhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a
ATgood example of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5zwhere
ATHeathfield's true colors are well and truly shown.

I've been participating in this newsgroup for over a decade, long
enough to remember the Scott Nuds and Portable ASM debacle; I don't
think I need an anonymous troll telling me what to think about
regulars of long standing.

Further, why are you trying to make this a personal attack on Mr
Heathfield? The limits on topicality that he encourages are the ones
supported by the vast majority of people who bothered to respond to
that thread, started by the same Mr Heathfield in response to
criticisms like yours that his view of topicality was too narrow.

Charlton
Mr Heathfield is undoubtedly very knowledgeable about c89. He is
however unwilling to discuss other standards as he has shown recently
while pretending Jacob's code was un-compilable.

He has no more say in what is posted to this NG than any one else. If
people post C related posts then this is a good resource for people who
might be able to help. As was made very clear in the founding
charter. And to deny that is what it was is plain ridiculous.

Often there are not dedicated NGs elsewhere. A little bit of flexibility
is the key to many things in life. If you don't like it, then ignore it
or kill file the thread or the originating poster or the person who
replies. Or *gasp* just mark it as read. if others post a sensible reply
then some good has come from the group. Certainly more good than you or
Heathfield puffing our your chests and telling everyone how you have no
intention of helping because the Q is what YOU deem as Off Topic.

I suspect that most reasonable posters did not take part in Heathfield's
little poll - primarily because they have better things to do than
nitpick and play word games with the clique. I know that I kill any
thread where Mr Heathfield, Mr McIntyre or Mr CBFalconer start their
little games of oneupmanship.

What do I mean by related?

Easy. Consider someone posting here for the resident experts views on
the best cross platform IDE for developing C. Strongly C related. There
are many people here who are experienced in just this area. Lovely.

If that kind of thing leads to RH departing then more fool him. It is
proven daily in real life that there is always someone else there to
pick up the reigns.
Dec 10 '07 #52
jacob navia wrote:

(stuff)

Have you noticed that when you _stick to talking about C_, your opinion
is valued?

Have you noticed that when you waste everyone's time gibbering on and on
and on about how everyone hates you and how you're misunderstood, and
how you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, people increasingly
treat you like an idiot?

Dec 10 '07 #53
jacob navia wrote:
William Pursell wrote:
>However, I believe Mr.
Heathfield has more reader's respect than
do you, and in that sense he realistically does
have more of an impact on the group. That may
be construed as more authority.

He has surely a group of people behind him that
do not hesitate to start insulting anyone
that doesn't agree with them.
Jacob, thats a bare-faced lie. You owe an apology to a great many people.

--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Dec 10 '07 #54
jacob navia wrote:
>
WORD GAMES.
If you haven't learned by now that words have meanings and context, and
that meanings and contexts are important, then you have a problem. That
said, it woudl explain a lot about why you find such difficulty in
contributing usefully to CLC.
And always refusing any discussion of the issues at hand.
This is an outright lie however.
When we discussed this in comp.std.c he could only master apityful
post where he tried to insult me/ridiculing my arguments without
proposing anything of substantial value.
Feel free to post a substantiating link, or to apologise for making a
false statement.
--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Dec 10 '07 #55
jacob navia wrote:
ro*******@mailinator.com wrote:
>Hey, dumb ass, guess what?

[snip]

This is the only level of discussion that the "regulars" are able
to master.
Well, if you insist on classifying plonked trolls as 'regulars'.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 10 '07 #56
On 10 Dec 2007 at 22:24, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATPerhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a
ATgood example of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5zwhere
ATHeathfield's true colors are well and truly shown.

I've been participating in this newsgroup for over a decade, long
enough to remember the Scott Nuds and Portable ASM debacle; I don't
think I need an anonymous troll telling me what to think about
regulars of long standing.
I think you should try to shake off the spell Heathfield casts over
people and look at the evidence. In the thread linked to above, here is
a direct quote: "If we didn't defend topicality, the S/N ratio would be
much lower than it currently is. ... People who continually ignore the
topicality of this group /do/ get yelled at, of course, and IMHO quite
rightly." Are these the words of a topicality moderate, or of a zealot
and a net-nanny?
Further, why are you trying to make this a personal attack on Mr
Heathfield? The limits on topicality that he encourages are the ones
supported by the vast majority of people who bothered to respond to
that thread, started by the same Mr Heathfield in response to
criticisms like yours that his view of topicality was too narrow.
Well, Heathfield knows all about personal attacks. We now know that he
has been using sock puppets to carry out the nastiest elements of his
vendetta against Jacob Navia - his strategy is obviously to try to
eliminate Jacob, who might otherwise be a counterbalance to his
ultra-narrow view of topicality.

Heathfield exerts such a powerful effect over the group because he has a
great deal of personal charisma. This isn't necessarily a good thing -
we can all think of a German leader from the last century who was
extremely charismatic but did some terrible things. (It's an interesting
coincidence that the target of Heathfield's persecution has a Jewish
name...)

Dec 11 '07 #57
In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
....
>When o when will you grow up?
Oh, the irony...

Dec 11 '07 #58
>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATWell, Heathfield knows all about personal attacks. We now know
ATthat he has been using sock puppets to carry out the nastiest
ATelements of his vendetta against Jacob Navia - his strategy is
ATobviously to try to eliminate Jacob, who might otherwise be a
ATcounterbalance to his ultra-narrow view of topicality.

First: "we" know no such thing about sock puppets; if you want this
allegation to be taken seriously, you need to provide evidence.

Second: Jacob Navia does a sufficient job of eliminating himself,
because it is impossible to have any sort of discussion with him if
you disagree with him.

ATHeathfield exerts such a powerful effect over the group
ATbecause he has a great deal of personal charisma. This isn't
ATnecessarily a good thing - we can all think of a German leader
ATfrom the last century who was extremely charismatic but did
ATsome terrible things. (It's an interesting coincidence that
ATthe target of Heathfield's persecution has a Jewish name...)

Third: Mr Heathfield exerts a powerful effect because he's correct; if
he were wrong as often as Mr Navia is, and as rude when corrected,
he'd get similar treatment.

Fourth: introducing comparisons to Hitler and allegations of
anti-Semitism is ungrounded and inflammatory.

Charlton

--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Dec 11 '07 #59
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
Third: Mr Heathfield exerts a powerful effect because he's correct; if
he were wrong as often as Mr Navia is, and as rude when corrected,
he'd get similar treatment.
When someone is correct on a technical matter, or expresses the majority
opinion on a meta issue, there is no need to influence anyone.

When Richard is wrong, there a plenty here who are keen to tell him and
when they do, he comes clean. Which is more than can be said for
certain other contributors to this thread.

Anyway, why are we giving an anonymous coward troll the pleasure of a
debate?

--
Ian Collins.
Dec 11 '07 #60
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATPerhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a
ATgood example of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5zwhere
ATHeathfield's true colors are well and truly shown.

I've been participating in this newsgroup for over a decade, long
enough to remember the Scott Nuds and Portable ASM debacle; I don't
think I need an anonymous troll telling me what to think about
regulars of long standing.

Further, why are you trying to make this a personal attack on Mr
Heathfield? The limits on topicality that he encourages are the ones
supported by the vast majority of people who bothered to respond to
that thread, started by the same Mr Heathfield in response to
criticisms like yours that his view of topicality was too narrow.

Charlton

Twink is a troll.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Dec 11 '07 #61
Antoninus Twink said:
On 10 Dec 2007 at 21:47, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
ATThis is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will
ATreally fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when
ATyour actions in this group (constant sniping, constant "you're
AToff topic" posts) give the lie to this claim day after day?

Whether Mr Heathfield is "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal" in
his view on topicality is largely irrelevant; there *was* a lengthy
thread, where Mr Heathfield asked the contributors to the group what
they preferred to be topical. Considered on a basis of one poster,
one vote, the consensus of the group is almost overwhelmingly in favor
of the narrowly-defined topicality of K&R and ISO C. Further, it was
conducted in public, so you can go back and read the votes and the
rationales behind them.

I recommend you search for it on Google Groups; you might be
enlightened.

Perhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a good example
of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5zwhere Heathfield's true colors
are well and truly shown.
From that thread:
"istartedi": p.s., C really needs standard graphics. :)
Emmanuel Delaheye:For a toaster or a traffic light controller?
Very interesing.
Richard Heathfield:Actually, I agree with the other guy. Traffic light
controllers might well need to provide graphical
feedback to - say - service engineers. As for
toasters, presumably if you are writing code
specifically for an ungraphical toaster, you
wouldn't bother calling C's standard graphics.

So, in the very thread that you claim (and having re-read all my
contributions to that thread, I agree that it) represents my "true
colours", we see my advocacy of adding a standard graphics interface to
the C language. Not a long advocacy, since strictly speaking it's OT for
clc (although of course it would be bang on topic for csc), but it does at
least demonstrate that the view that I'm some kind of reactionary, longing
for the restoration of the 1970s, is flawed.

As for the rest of that thread, it seems to me to be a reasonable defence
of the reasons for topicality.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 11 '07 #62
Antoninus Twink said:
On 8 Dec 2007 at 14:46, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they would
like it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated that they
wished the group to continue to restrict itself to K&R C and the
various ISO standards. If you wanted to loosen up the topicality
requirements of this group, that would have been a great time to make
yourself heard, but IIRC you did not do so. Even if you had taken
part, however, you would have been in the minority (as was I).

This is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will really
fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when your actions in
this group (constant sniping, constant "you're off topic" posts) give
the lie to this claim day after day?
Actually, I try to avoid telling people they're off-topic, and I try to
avoid "sniping". I don't always succeed, but then I never claimed to be
perfect.

Furthermore, I *do* think the topicality of this group should be broadened
a little, *BUT* the majority of regular contributors here disagree with me
on that, and I abide by the consensus, rather than seeking to impose my
own view of topicality on the group.

So, as usual, you are completely and utterly wrong.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 11 '07 #63
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
>Well, Heathfield knows all about personal attacks. We now know
that he has been using sock puppets to carry out the nastiest
elements of his vendetta against Jacob Navia - his strategy is
obviously to try to eliminate Jacob, who might otherwise be a
counterbalance to his ultra-narrow view of topicality.

First: "we" know no such thing about sock puppets; if you want
this allegation to be taken seriously, you need to provide
evidence.

Second: Jacob Navia does a sufficient job of eliminating himself,
because it is impossible to have any sort of discussion with him
if you disagree with him.
>Heathfield exerts such a powerful effect over the group
because he has a great deal of personal charisma. This isn't
necessarily a good thing - we can all think of a German leader
from the last century who was extremely charismatic but did
some terrible things. (It's an interesting coincidence that
the target of Heathfield's persecution has a Jewish name...)

Third: Mr Heathfield exerts a powerful effect because he's
correct; if he were wrong as often as Mr Navia is, and as rude
when corrected, he'd get similar treatment.

Fourth: introducing comparisons to Hitler and allegations of
anti-Semitism is ungrounded and inflammatory.
Why are you amusing and encouraging the silly troll? If you want
to address the newsgroup, rather than the troll, there is no need
for Hitler references.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 11 '07 #64
Bart van Ingen Schenau wrote:
Actually, it is quite often that I don't have a debugger available or
that a debugger affects the behaviour of the code too much.
You learn to live with that fact and you simply use other tools that
are available for tracking down bugs.
>But why must you?

If I really want to use features that are not available in C, I turn
to some other language that does have the features I want.
There is such a wealth of languages with different strengths and
features that there will always be one that fits my needs. I see no
reason to add 'enhancements' to C if there is some other language that
I can use to get those 'enhancements'.
Of course there are a wealth of monster languages available but they
are the wrong solution: adding more complexity to software instead of
keeping it simple:

o C++ is *the* monster language.
o Java/C# Proprietary stuff that is slow, memory hungry because
of their virtual machine runtime
o Basic. No standard, you are at the mercy of the changes Microsoft
makes to the language.

The choice of C is because it is a non OO language, that is basically
very simple. What looks like a paradox it is not any: I want to keep the
simplicity of C and *at the same time* I want to enhance it so it
can be used a s a normal programming language.

The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.

>This is the point!

All of them are useful, and once you have them it is obvious that they
give you more development possibilities:

o fixed point numbers
o bound checked arrays
o container access to abstract data types.

They allow you to do things that in most environments
are considered normal. Why must C remain at this
level? There is NO REASON.

This sounds to me like: Lets take all these features that I like in
other languages and add them to C.
This is not what I have ever proposed. I proposed 2 major enhancements:
operator overloading, and try/catch. That is all.

Now, if we ask another 100 C developers what they would like to add,
you end up with a list that would C make a more complex beast than C+
+.
What do you want to say with that statement?
If you ask 100 C++ developers what do they need you would end up with
the same answer.

So, what makes you so special that the features you mention must be
added to C, but not those features that others come up with?

Bart v Ingen Schenau
There is nothing "special" about try/catch. It fills a hole in C,
a hole that is needed in one of the fields where C is actually used:
embedded systems.

Operator overloading is a technique used in venerable languages like
FORTRAN, BASIC, what have you.

Nothing really complex.
Dec 11 '07 #65
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
ro*******@mailinator.com wrote:
>Hey, dumb ass, guess what?

[snip]

This is the only level of discussion that the "regulars" are able to
master.
jacob, this "rosewater" person is a troll whom the "regulars" have
either condemned or ignored. There's a huge difference between his
stupid and offensive insults and the criticism that's been directed at
you by some of the rest of us. Don't make the mistake of thinking
that "rosewater" speaks for anyone but him/herself.

And as one of the "regulars", I'm a bit insulted at being lumped in
with this troll.

My advice (which you're under no obligation to follow) is to add
"rosewater" to your killfile. He or she isn't worth the effort of a
response.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 11 '07 #66
jacob navia said:

<snip>
The choice of C is because it is a non OO language, that is basically
very simple. What looks like a paradox it is not any: I want to keep the
simplicity of C and *at the same time* I want to enhance it so it
can be used a s a normal programming language.
C can already be used as a normal programming language. If that is your
only goal, no enhancements are required.
The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
I can't speak for other regulars, but *this* regular wants no such thing.
This regular wants C to retain the things that make it so useful:
simplicity, speed, power, portability. The more features you can pack into
it without compromising those benefits, the better. The problem with C99
is not that it is *new*, but that it is not widely implemented. If I write
a program using arbitrary C99 features, I cannot guarantee that it will be
possible to use that program on arbitrary hosted platforms (let alone
freestanding platforms). The problem with C99 is not that it represents
*change*, but that implementors have stayed away from it in droves.

It is now eight years since C99 was adopted. How many implementations do we
have that conform to C99? I can't find the list now, but last time I
looked it was about four, none of which are mainstream.

Microsoft doesn't conform to C99. Borland doesn't conform to C99. GNU
doesn't conform to C99. So even Windows users will struggle to find C99
conformance.

If you want to advocate changes to C, fine - we *have* changes all ready to
go and all formalised in a signed-off international standard, and all you
have to do is to lobby Microsoft, Borland, and GNU to get their act
together and get a C99 implementation working. (Good luck with that.)

Once we've got those changes implemented, maybe then it will make sense to
look at some more. But endless proposals of changes will simply back up in
a queue if there isn't some way to persuade implementors that those
changes are worthwhile enough to implement.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 11 '07 #67
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

Those of us who program in C do not have the option of using features
such as overloading and exception handling that (a) are not defined by
the standard, and (b) are not provided by most implementations.
Nevertheless, we manage to muddle along producing code that, if we're
careful and lucky, actually does something useful. We do this, for
the most part, by programming in standard C. We find it useful to
have a forum for discussing standard C, not the additional features
that, useful though they might be, just aren't available to us. Why
must you intrude on that forum with off-topic postings?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 11 '07 #68
On Dec 11, 7:16 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Antoninus Twink said:
<snip>
Well, Heathfield knows all about personal attacks.
Yes he does. He's pretty good at them. The ones I like best are the
subtle ones, where you're not even sure if the target realises they've
just been insulted.
Yes, someone even threatened to break my nose because he didn't understand
something or other about strings.
I don't know the story behind this, and from what you've said in the
past, this episode is obviously unacceptable. Threat of physical
violence is, well, "just not on".

But I can believe the story, very easily. If you behave in real life
as you do here, then frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen all the
time to you. You are intentionally aggressive and rude; you should
not be surprised when one of your victims finally snaps.
Dec 11 '07 #69
Doug said:
On Dec 11, 7:16 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Antoninus Twink said:

<snip>
Well, Heathfield knows all about personal attacks.

Yes he does. He's pretty good at them. The ones I like best are the
subtle ones, where you're not even sure if the target realises they've
just been insulted.
These would be the same ones where the source doesn't realise it either,
presumably.
>Yes, someone even threatened to break my nose because he didn't
understand something or other about strings.

I don't know the story behind this, and from what you've said in the
past, this episode is obviously unacceptable. Threat of physical
violence is, well, "just not on".
Right. So direct your venom against those who deserve it, please.
But I can believe the story, very easily. If you behave in real life
as you do here, then frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen all the
time to you. You are intentionally aggressive and rude; you should
not be surprised when one of your victims finally snaps.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 11 '07 #70
In article <87************@kvetch.smov.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
>RH's sock puppet ("ro*******@mailinator.com") wrote:
>>Hey, dumb ass, guess what?

[snip]

This is the only level of discussion that the "regulars" are able to
master.

jacob, this "rosewater" person is a troll whom the "regulars" have
either condemned or ignored. There's a huge difference between his
stupid and offensive insults and the criticism that's been directed at
you by some of the rest of us. Don't make the mistake of thinking
that "rosewater" speaks for anyone but him/herself.
That's the whole point of a sock puppet. To say things that the
puppeteer wants to say, but not under their own name.

Attacking from both sides, you know.
>And as one of the "regulars", I'm a bit insulted at being lumped in
with this troll.
Aw, poor baby. You'll get over it.
>My advice (which you're under no obligation to follow) is to add
"rosewater" to your killfile. He or she isn't worth the effort of a
response.
He's as entertaining as his puppeteer (RH). I wouldn't miss either one.

Dec 11 '07 #71
jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>jacob navia said:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of
the "regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in
its bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?

The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from the surface of
the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL.

This doesn't actually matter as much as you seem to think.

Thanks. This confirms what I said above:
If you think so, then I can't have expressed myself clearly enough.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to put it any more clearly.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 11 '07 #72
jacob navia wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?
[A lot of text, which contained not a single citation of an article in which anyone expressed such a desire.]
Why did you bother responding to that comment, if you weren't actually
planning on answering the question?

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I want is a language standard
sufficiently stable that I can write code in accordance with that
standard, and have it still work as intended at least a couple of
decades into the future. I know that some of my 10-year old code is
still in use, and I suspect that some of my older stuff is, as well,
so this doesn't strike me as an excessively optimistic take on the
longevity of my own code. It shouldn't need a complete re-write every
few years to keep up with the latest changes to the language; I've got
much better things to do with my time.

That doesn't mean that the language can't change, merely that the
committee should give a reasonable amount of consideration to the
issue of maintaining backward compatibility. What I consider "a
reasonable amount of consideration" is far more than you're
comfortable with, judging from the changes you've proposed.

I also want a clear distinction maintained between the proper domain
for the language, and the proper domain for third-party libraries. In
my opinion, complex arithmetic, fixed-point arithmetic, and threading
are all examples of things that should be supported at the language
level. GC is an example I of something I don't think should be
supported, but if it is supported, it's best supported at the language
level as well. On the other hand, I don't think a GUI interface is
something that needs to be specified at the language level; that's in
the proper domain for third-party libraries. You seem more like the
kind of guy who wants everything that you think is desirable included
in the language.

....
By restricting all discussion to C89, the regulars forbid any discussion
The "regulars" have no more power to forbid any kind of discussion
than you do. The most that they can do is object, which is a power you
possess just as much as they do..
Dec 11 '07 #73
In article <9t******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidcrooned:
>jacob navia swooned:
....
>Thanks. This confirms what I said above:

If you think so, then I can't have expressed myself clearly enough.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to put it any more clearly.
You two really need to just up and get a room somewhere.

Dec 11 '07 #74
Mark McIntyre wrote:

Its useless to argue with you however.
Correct. So can't you guys STOP arguing with him?


Brian
Dec 11 '07 #75
jacob navia wrote, On 11/12/07 11:21:
Bart van Ingen Schenau wrote:
>Actually, it is quite often that I don't have a debugger available or
that a debugger affects the behaviour of the code too much.
You learn to live with that fact and you simply use other tools that
are available for tracking down bugs.
>>But why must you?

If I really want to use features that are not available in C, I turn
to some other language that does have the features I want.
There is such a wealth of languages with different strengths and
features that there will always be one that fits my needs. I see no
reason to add 'enhancements' to C if there is some other language that
I can use to get those 'enhancements'.

Of course there are a wealth of monster languages available but they
are the wrong solution: adding more complexity to software instead of
keeping it simple:

o C++ is *the* monster language.
You can use a subset of it.
o Java/C# Proprietary stuff that is slow, memory hungry because
of their virtual machine runtime
Not necessarily as bad as you think.
o Basic. No standard, you are at the mercy of the changes Microsoft
makes to the language.
There is a standard for Basic (although I don't know if there are any
current implementations) and you are only at the mercy of MS if you use
their implementation instead of one of the others.

Then there is Pascal (I've used several Pascal compilers targeting
embedded systems), Ada (definitely a standard for it) and many others.
The Pascal implementations I used definitely were not monsters.
The choice of C is because it is a non OO language,
There are plenty of those.
that is basically
very simple.
The Pascal's I used for embedded work were both simple and non-OO
What looks like a paradox it is not any: I want to keep the
simplicity of C and *at the same time* I want to enhance it so it
can be used a s a normal programming language.
Each enhancement adds complexity. That complexity needs justification.
The way C is headed now is to extinction,
It has a *very* long way to go for that.
and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
Stop talking crap. You obviously don't know what most of the regulars
want otherwise you would not keep repeating statements like this.
>>This is the point!

All of them are useful, and once you have them it is obvious that they
give you more development possibilities:

o fixed point numbers
o bound checked arrays
o container access to abstract data types.

They allow you to do things that in most environments
are considered normal. Why must C remain at this
level? There is NO REASON.

This sounds to me like: Lets take all these features that I like in
other languages and add them to C.

This is not what I have ever proposed. I proposed 2 major enhancements:
operator overloading, and try/catch. That is all.
Here is a quote from another message of yours...
| The main propositions developed here are:
| o Operator overloading
| o Garbage Collection
| o Generic functions
| o Default function arguments
| o References

Each of those sounds like a major change to me, and I count more than 2.
>Now, if we ask another 100 C developers what they would like to add,
you end up with a list that would C make a more complex beast than C+
+.

What do you want to say with that statement?
What he said. Different people would want different extensions so you
would end up with a far more complex language. For example, the things I
would most like added to the language are *not* the extensions you are
proposing. A try/catch mechanism would be on my list, but not one of the
top 2, and operator overloading would not be on it at all. The top two
would be fixed point arithmetic and decimal floating point. No, I would
not want operator overloading and implementing them using that, I would
want them part of the base language.

Oh, and don't you think the GNU and Linux people would want their
extensions added to C as a higher priority?
If you ask 100 C++ developers what do they need you would end up with
the same answer.
That is irrelevant.
>So, what makes you so special that the features you mention must be
added to C, but not those features that others come up with?

Bart v Ingen Schenau

There is nothing "special" about try/catch.
It can hide things quite effectively.
It fills a hole in C,
a hole that is needed in one of the fields where C is actually used:
embedded systems.
I can't say that I missed it in my years of embedded development, and I
can't remember any bugs that would have been less likely if we had used
a try/catch mechanism. So it is definitely not needed in all embedded
systems. By the way, I used a language with a try/catch mechanism before
a lot of my embedded work.
Operator overloading is a technique used in venerable languages like
FORTRAN, BASIC, what have you.
Not in most of the Basics that I used to use. Possibly Visual Basic (I
can't be bothered to check at the moment) but definitely not the others.
Nothing really complex.
You have not said why *your* top two extensions should be added in
preference to mine or anyone elses. Add all of them and you get a
monster language, add my top 2 and you don't get what you want, and so on.
--
Flash Gordon
Dec 11 '07 #76
In article <5s*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>Its useless to argue with you however.

Correct. So can't you guys STOP arguing with him?
Oh come on - give the kids a break!

Do you realize how totally empty RH's and MM's lives (*) would be if
you took their last shreds of happiness, namely Navia bashing, from them?

(*) Lives, yes. Pathetic, miserable excuses for lives, but lives
nonetheless (credit to anyone who can identify this reference).

Dec 11 '07 #77
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
>>The way C is headed now is to extinction, and that is what most of the
"regulars" here actually want: a language that is so frozen in its
bugs that all reasonable software developers do not see it as an
alternative.
[...]

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Can you cite one single
article in which one of the "regulars" has expressed a desire for C to
become extinct?
[big snip]

A simple "no" would suffice.

You have not cited an article in which one of the "regulars" has
expressed a desire for C to become extinct.

Here's what I think you're really saying; please correct me if I
unintentionally misrepresent your position.

You personally believe that C is becoming extinct. You have some
ideas for changes to the language (exceptions, operator overloading,
automtic garbage collection) that you believe would save the language
from extinction. When you advocate those changes here in comp.lang.c,
the reaction from the "regulars" has been negative; either they
dislike your proposals (and fail to offer better ideas for changing
the language), or they ask you to discuss them elsewhere, or both.

And therefore, it follows that the "regulars" *want* C to become
extinct.

The first few steps in (what I believe to be) your reasoning are not
entirely unreasonable. The last, in my opinion, is a huge leap not
supported by any evidence that has been offered here.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 11 '07 #78
Keith Thompson wrote:
A simple "no" would suffice.

You have not cited an article in which one of the "regulars" has
expressed a desire for C to become extinct.
I said in this same thread:
The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from the surface of
the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL.
Heathfield answered:
This doesn't actually matter as much as you seem to think.
C disappearing is not so bad as I would think.

Yeah. Then it's OK.
Here's what I think you're really saying; please correct me if I
unintentionally misrepresent your position.

You personally believe that C is becoming extinct.
I cited a lot of facts that you snipped.

You have some
ideas for changes to the language (exceptions, operator overloading,
automtic garbage collection) that you believe would save the language
from extinction. When you advocate those changes here in comp.lang.c,
the reaction from the "regulars" has been negative; either they
dislike your proposals (and fail to offer better ideas for changing
the language), or they ask you to discuss them elsewhere, or both.

And therefore, it follows that the "regulars" *want* C to become
extinct.
They do not want anything. They want just C89 forever. The language
becomes obsolete, people turn away from it.

Like those old homeowners amid a house in ruins
that refuse to repair anything...

"It is OK like that". I am old anyway.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 11 '07 #79
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>A simple "no" would suffice.

You have not cited an article in which one of the "regulars" has
expressed a desire for C to become extinct.

I said in this same thread:
>The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from the surface of
the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL.

Heathfield answered:
>This doesn't actually matter as much as you seem to think.

C disappearing is not so bad as I would think.

Yeah. Then it's OK.
Richard did not say that he *wants* C to become extinct.

Learn to read.
>Here's what I think you're really saying; please correct me if I
unintentionally misrepresent your position.

You personally believe that C is becoming extinct.

I cited a lot of facts that you snipped.
Good for you.
>You have some
ideas for changes to the language (exceptions, operator overloading,
automtic garbage collection) that you believe would save the language
from extinction. When you advocate those changes here in comp.lang.c,
the reaction from the "regulars" has been negative; either they
dislike your proposals (and fail to offer better ideas for changing
the language), or they ask you to discuss them elsewhere, or both.

And therefore, it follows that the "regulars" *want* C to become
extinct.

They do not want anything. They want just C89 forever. The language
becomes obsolete, people turn away from it.

Like those old homeowners amid a house in ruins
that refuse to repair anything...

"It is OK like that". I am old anyway.
We want to discuss C as it currently exists. That implies absolutely
nothing about whether we want it to change.

A weather report discusses the weather as it actually is. It does not
discuss what the weather *should* be, or what we can do to change it;
there are other forums for such discussions. If a meteorologist
insisted on spending all his time talking about what he *wants* the
weather to be, how can I find out whether to carry an umbrella today?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 11 '07 #80
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
On and on and on.

Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you think
accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his whacked-out
ideas?


Brian
Dec 11 '07 #81
Keith Thompson said:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
<snip>
>Abandoning gets() would be a MAJOR change said many people.

I don't recall anyone referring to it as a "major change". A few
people opposed it because it was *a change* that would break existing
code, not because it was a *major* change.
It can reasonably be argued that any code that would be broken by the
withdrawal of support for gets() is already broken anyway.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 11 '07 #82
jacob navia wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
A simple "no" would suffice.

You have not cited an article in which one of the "regulars" has
expressed a desire for C to become extinct.
....
You have some
ideas for changes to the language (exceptions, operator overloading,
automtic garbage collection) that you believe would save the language
from extinction. When you advocate those changes here in comp.lang.c,
the reaction from the "regulars" has been negative; either they
dislike your proposals (and fail to offer better ideas for changing
the language), or they ask you to discuss them elsewhere, or both.

And therefore, it follows that the "regulars" *want* C to become
extinct.

They do not want anything. They want just C89 forever. The language
becomes obsolete, people turn away from it.
That's a very different claim from your original. It's still wrong,
but it's wrong in a very different way. Just because they don't think
that the particular changes you are suggesting are improvements,
doesn't mean that they don't want to improve the language.

And going back to your original claim (now abandoned?), it very
definitely doesn't mean that they WANT the language to become extinct.
What it does mean is that either they don't agree with you that it is
going extinct, or they don't agree with you that the changes that you
want would help prevent extinction, or they think that the changes you
want may actually help speed the extinction of the language. None of
those positions is equivalent to or implies a desire for the language
to become extinct.
Dec 11 '07 #83
Keith Thompson said:

<snip>
Richard did not say that he *wants* C to become extinct.
Nor did I say that I believe it is becoming extinct. My remark was in
answer to this claim: "The fact is, that C is completely disappearing from
the surface of the visible programming languages, faster than COBOL."

And I think that's true. C is indeed becoming less "visible". It's no
longer the rising star of programming languages. It is less commonly
taught in CS than in former years (although it is clear from reading this
group that lots of people are still studying it in a formal environment).
Languages like C++, Python, and latterly C#, are far more "visible" than
C, as a quick peek at the shelves of the bookshop's CS section will
demonstrate. And it was in that context that I replied that this doesn't
actually matter all that much - which is true.

The COBOL reference is relevant, I think. COBOL has basically vanished from
view - but it is STILL THERE, under the surface, and it's still a very
important language, and people still earn good money developing new COBOL
programs. The same applies to C. It is no longer particularly "visible",
but it's still there, and people still earn good money writing new C
programs. Okay, so nowadays Joe Programmer writes his hello-world programs
in VB or C# or whatever. So what? Where C is used, it is used a *lot*. In
systems programming, in the Unix world, and in embedded devices, C is
still very much in demand.

Does it matter, then, that C isn't as visible as it used to be, that it is
no longer "on the surface", so to speak? No, not particularly. It might
matter, if C were a religion - but it's just a programming language. If
better tools come along to replace it - great! Imagine something *even
better* than C! Fabulous! But until they do, C continues to hold an
important place in the modern programming world. And for as long as that
continues to be true, it will continue to be useful to have a discussion
group that focuses on that language. This doesn't mean it isn't possible
to improve C, but to view it as some kind of endangered species that needs
to evolve quickly or die out is just silly.

<snip>
We want to discuss C as it currently exists. That implies absolutely
nothing about whether we want it to change.
Precisely so.
A weather report discusses the weather as it actually is. It does not
discuss what the weather *should* be, or what we can do to change it;
there are other forums for such discussions. If a meteorologist
insisted on spending all his time talking about what he *wants* the
weather to be, how can I find out whether to carry an umbrella today?
Murphy's Law. Always carry an umbrella. If you forget it, you'll regret it.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 12 '07 #84
Default User wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:

On and on and on.

Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you think
accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his whacked-out
ideas?


Brian
Unable to argue, put forward any arguments.

Typical.

Just hoping that I will disappear, that C will remain in 1989
forever.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 12 '07 #85
jacob navia said:
Default User wrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:

On and on and on.

Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you think
accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his whacked-out
ideas?

Unable to argue, put forward any arguments.
Lots of people have put forward lots of arguments which you have seen fit
to ignore or misunderstand. It is hardly surprising that some people no
longer see any point in arguing with you. This does not imply that they
are unable to argue.
Typical.

Just hoping that I will disappear, that C will remain in 1989
forever.
Amazingly, that sentence is 50% correct. This may be some kind of record.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 12 '07 #86
In article <5s*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:

On and on and on.

Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you think
accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his whacked-out
ideas?
There you go again - trying to remove the last shreds of meaning from
their lives.

Dec 12 '07 #87
ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>A simple "no" would suffice.

You have not cited an article in which one of the "regulars" has
expressed a desire for C to become extinct.
...
>>You have some
ideas for changes to the language (exceptions, operator overloading,
automtic garbage collection) that you believe would save the language
from extinction. When you advocate those changes here in comp.lang.c,
the reaction from the "regulars" has been negative; either they
dislike your proposals (and fail to offer better ideas for changing
the language), or they ask you to discuss them elsewhere, or both.

And therefore, it follows that the "regulars" *want* C to become
extinct.
They do not want anything. They want just C89 forever. The language
becomes obsolete, people turn away from it.

That's a very different claim from your original. It's still wrong,
but it's wrong in a very different way. Just because they don't think
that the particular changes you are suggesting are improvements,
doesn't mean that they don't want to improve the language.
I have yet to see ANY proposal from the to improve ANYTHING.
Even the small improvements of C99 will be rejected (see the
countless posts of Heathfield about how bad C99 is, non portable whatever)

And going back to your original claim (now abandoned?), it very
definitely doesn't mean that they WANT the language to become extinct.
If you do not repair a house, it will break down and disappear.
Programming languages (like all software) must be constantly kept up
to date, things that looked OK are not OK anymore in the ever changing
software environment of TODAY.

If you insist in living in the past, you can freeze the language like
Heathfield, using a compiler from the last century and feeling clever
with it, like those homeowners that always postpone any repairs
until it is too late.

There is not a engineering argumentation anymore. Heathfield argues that
COBOL still gives you enough to make a living coding for old
applications somewhere.

Obviously he thinks that C should go the same way, since
there is so much software written in C that until it disappears it will
take a while.

But not the shadow of any engineering argument.
What it does mean is that either they don't agree with you that it is
going extinct,
Heathfield agrees that C is "less visible" and thinks it is a good
thing.
or they don't agree with you that the changes that you
want would help prevent extinction,
No. They are against ANY change. Even C99 is too much change for them.
or they think that the changes you
want may actually help speed the extinction of the language.
That would be new. Up to now none of them has said something
like that, but... it is never too late :-)
None of
those positions is equivalent to or implies a desire for the language
to become extinct.
As I told you above, if you do not keep software up to date it just
breaks down and is abandoned. It is NOT that you WANT that, it is
just a fact of life.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 12 '07 #88
Flash Gordon wrote:
>
Yes, and a lot of people who would say that were advocating the change.
>And it happened eventually, and *because* of that discussion.

It has been deprecated, and I'm sure that the reason for it was not the
discussions here.
After a LONG discussion about gets() in comp.std.c,
where I participated with many
others, Mr Gwyn felt necessary to bring the matter to the committee.

He wanted a more modest proposal, where there would be an implicit
BUFSIZE limit for gets().

The committee seized the opportunity and declared gets() obsolete.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 12 '07 #89
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:

On and on and on.

Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you think
accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his whacked-out
ideas?
You make a good point. I think it's important not to let jacob's
misstatements go entirely unanswered, but I'll consider trying not to
engage him in argument as much as I have been.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 12 '07 #90
Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia said:
>Default User wrote:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:

jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
On and on and on.

Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you think
accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his whacked-out
ideas?
Unable to argue, put forward any arguments.

Lots of people have put forward lots of arguments which you have seen fit
to ignore or misunderstand. It is hardly surprising that some people no
longer see any point in arguing with you. This does not imply that they
are unable to argue.
>Typical.

Just hoping that I will disappear, that C will remain in 1989
forever.

Amazingly, that sentence is 50% correct. This may be some kind of record.
Yeah, you are in for a LOOOOOONG wait heathfield (with lowercase :-)
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 12 '07 #91
jacob navia said:

<snip>
I have yet to see ANY proposal from the to improve ANYTHING.
That's because the best place to post suggested improvements to the
language is the comp.std.c group. The comp.lang.c group deals with the
language as it is and was. The comp.std.c group deals with what the
language might become.
Even the small improvements of C99 will be rejected (see the
countless posts of Heathfield about how bad C99 is, non portable
whatever)
I do actually think that some of the C99 changes are for the better. For
example, compound literals are a good idea. But yes, portability is still
a big problem for C99.
>And going back to your original claim (now abandoned?), it very
definitely doesn't mean that they WANT the language to become extinct.

If you do not repair a house, it will break down and disappear.
Programming languages are not houses.
Programming languages (like all software) must be constantly kept up
to date, things that looked OK are not OK anymore in the ever changing
software environment of TODAY.
If you keep changing the language, you make it impossible (or unprofitable,
which can amount to the same thing) for implementors to keep in step with
the Standard. This has already happened with C99, and it's likely to
happen with any future changes to the language as well. That doesn't mean
that C should stagnate, but it does mean that developers who need to write
portable code will do well to avoid features that are not widely
implemented. So even if you do succeed in getting ISO to adopt your
changes, they are unlikely to be widely implemented or used.
If you insist in living in the past, you can freeze the language like
Heathfield, using a compiler from the last century and feeling clever
with it, like those homeowners that always postpone any repairs
until it is too late.
It is precisely because C is so stable that I can continue to use a
compiler for many years and still be sure that the code I write will work
on implementations that I've never even heard of, but which other people
use regularly. I see that as a good thing.
There is not a engineering argumentation anymore. Heathfield argues that
COBOL still gives you enough to make a living coding for old
applications somewhere.
That isn't what I said.
Obviously he thinks that C should go the same way,
That isn't what I said.
since
there is so much software written in C that until it disappears it will
take a while.
That isn't what I said.
But not the shadow of any engineering argument.
The engineering argument is simple: C is popular at least in part because
it is portable. Making many large changes to the language will make it
harder for implementors to keep up with the language, and so the features
you wish to add won't be used by those writing portable code. Those who
are happy to use non-portable code can *already* use extensions that
implement the changes you want to make.
>
>What it does mean is that either they don't agree with you that it is
going extinct,

Heathfield agrees that C is "less visible" and thinks it is a good
thing.
I didn't say I thought it was a good thing. I said I didn't think it
mattered very much. C's future is secure.
>
>or they don't agree with you that the changes that you
want would help prevent extinction,

No. They are against ANY change. Even C99 is too much change for them.
C99 is too much change for *you* - the implementor. It's EIGHT YEARS since
C99 was published. How many conforming C99 implementations do we have?
Almost none, and even your own implementation doesn't conform to C99.
Programmers *can't* use the full range of features introduced by C99 if
they want their code to remain portable to your implementation (or to MS,
or to Borland, or to gcc...). And now you want to push the goalposts even
further away. That simply doesn't make sense.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dec 12 '07 #92
On Dec 11, 10:10 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
<"they" referring to the CLC regulars>
>
They do not want anything. They want just C89 forever. The language
becomes obsolete, people turn away from it.
People do not necessarily turn away from it.
In the last 2 years, I have turned TO it precisely
because it is simple, clean(arguably), elegant,
and powerful. I (and I speak only for myself...
you seem to have a tendency to group everyone who disagrees
with you into one large homogenous group of "regulars",
which is odd considering that you are certainly a
"regular" by any usual definition of the word)
do not want "C89" forever.
I would love it if C99 were widely implemented.
I would love it if C embraced namespaces. I
would love it if the library added a
"read_my_mind_and_solve_my_problem()"
function, too. That would be great: every program
would be:

int main( void ) { solve_it(); return 1; }

and this entire newsgroup could degenerate into
a discussion of the headers that I left off
and the non-portability of returning 1.

I certainly acknowledge that I am in a minority
for embracing C recently, but there are good
reasons for doing so. The higher level languages
obscure details. Sometimes that is good, sometimes
it is not. Two items in particular that I think
are a bad idea are try/catch and operator
overloading. The former because it is infinitely
abusable and the latter because it inappropriately
hides complexity. I love operator overloading,
and I love try/catch...but not when I am using
C. I think they would harm the language.

Dec 12 '07 #93
On Dec 12, 12:11 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
Default User wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrites:
On and on and on.
Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you think
accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his whacked-out
ideas?
Brian

Unable to argue, put forward any arguments.

Typical.

Just hoping that I will disappear, that C will remain in 1989
forever.
Jacob, this is precisely the type of response that
gives people a negative impression of you. The
fact that Brian thinks that discussions with you
are pointless in no way indicates that he is unable
to argue or put forward arguments. It is certainly
understandable for you to take offense at his
description of your ideas as "whacked-out", but
lashing out at him with a personal attack (even
if you consider it to be defensive) does not
help your case.
Dec 12 '07 #94
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
I have yet to see ANY proposal from the to improve ANYTHING.
Even the small improvements of C99 will be rejected (see the
countless posts of Heathfield about how bad C99 is, non portable whatever)
[...]

It is an unfortunate fact that C99 code is less portable than C90
code, because there are far fewer conforming C99 implementations thatn
conforming C90 implementations. Do you dispute that?

You want C99 to be more widely adopted. So do I. So, I believe, does
Richard.

Because Richard and I are not implementers, there's not much we can do
to make that happen.

You, on the other hand, are an implementer. Updating lcc-win32 to
*fully* support the C99 standard would do more to encourage its
adoption than anything any of us can say here in comp.lang.c or over
in comp.std.c. I'd even seriously consider using lcc-win32 myself.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 12 '07 #95
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Flash Gordon wrote:
>Yes, and a lot of people who would say that were advocating the change.
>>And it happened eventually, and *because* of that discussion.

It has been deprecated, and I'm sure that the reason for it was not
the discussions here.

After a LONG discussion about gets() in comp.std.c,
where I participated with many
others, Mr Gwyn felt necessary to bring the matter to the committee.

He wanted a more modest proposal, where there would be an implicit
BUFSIZE limit for gets().

The committee seized the opportunity and declared gets() obsolete.
Well, obsolescent, not obsolete (there's a difference).

But yes, the discussion took place in comp.std.c, not here in
comp.lang.c.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 12 '07 #96
On 12 Dec, 00:21, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
jameskuy...@verizon.net wrote:
<snip>
And going back to your original claim (now abandoned?), it very
definitely doesn't mean that they WANT the language to become extinct.

If you do not repair a house, it will break down and disappear.
Programming languages (like all software) must be constantly kept up
to date, things that looked OK are not OK anymore in the ever changing
software environment of TODAY.
this is a very strained analogy. A programming alnguage is not a
house.

If you insist in living in the past, you can freeze the language like
Heathfield, using a compiler from the last century and feeling clever
with it
*last century*? You mean only 7 years ago? I expect some of my
software
to keep running a bit longer than that. Sometimes we are legally
obliged to guarentee that.

There is not a engineering argumentation anymore.
I don't think you are using engineering arguments. If we are going
to follow this sort of argument I'd say you were trying to abolish
the
hexagonal bolt. "It's so last century". Ignoring the vast investment
in hexagonal bolts. And the tools to use them.

<snip>
As I told you above, if you do not keep software up to date it just
breaks down and is abandoned.
software does not "break down". If you're going to claim to be
using "engineering arguments" then you have to start being more
precise
in your language. For instance no regualr has stated that they want C
to become obsolete. Despite that fact that you keep on claiming it.

It is NOT that you WANT that, it is
just a fact of life.
no, it is an untrue statement.

--
Nick Keighley
Dec 12 '07 #97
Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia said:
[whatever]
It is hardly surprising that some
people no longer see any point in arguing with you.
If only that were true. Seriously.


Brian
Dec 12 '07 #98
Keith Thompson wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
On and on and on.

Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you
think accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his
whacked-out ideas?

You make a good point. I think it's important not to let jacob's
misstatements go entirely unanswered, but I'll consider trying not to
engage him in argument as much as I have been.
That sounds good. I completely support correction in that case.


Brian
Dec 12 '07 #99
William Pursell wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:11 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
Default User wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrites:
On and on and on.
Is there ANY purpose to this incessant arguing with Jacob? Do you
think accomplish anything besides give him a platform for his
whacked-out ideas?
Unable to argue, put forward any arguments.
The
fact that Brian thinks that discussions with you
are pointless in no way indicates that he is unable
to argue or put forward arguments.
The main reason is that I have no interest. Some people seem immune to
logic and reasoned discourse. Jacob is one such. I have had him
killfiled for quite some time now.

I really believe that the best thing for the newsgroup is for everyone
to stop arguing with him. Correct his errors and misstatements once, so
that newbies aren't confused, then move on.

I have considered a filter for Jacob's name in the body of any message.
That would indeed clean up things to certain extent for me, but doesn't
help the group overall.


Brian
Dec 12 '07 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

16 posts views Thread by David Turner | last post: by
21 posts views Thread by dkcpub | last post: by
26 posts views Thread by OvErboRed | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by Gianni Mariani | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by RepStat | last post: by
14 posts views Thread by dcassar | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Anonieko | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.