By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,740 Members | 844 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,740 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Learning C online?

P: n/a
What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

Is this a good site:
http://www.space.unibe.ch/comp_doc/c_manual/C/cref.html

Zach
Mar 12 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
51 Replies


P: n/a
Zach wrote:
What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?
This question is asked here often, even this week. Search through the
archives for 'tutorial'

--
Ian Collins.
Mar 12 '08 #2

P: n/a
Zach wrote:
What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

Is this a good site:
http://www.space.unibe.ch/comp_doc/c_manual/C/cref.html

Zach
You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 12 '08 #3

P: n/a
Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.comwrites:
Zach wrote:
>What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?
This question is asked here often, even this week. Search through the
archives for 'tutorial'
So are 99% of the questions. What is your point?
Mar 12 '08 #4

P: n/a
On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>
You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Hi Jacob,

I use a Linux OS.

Zach
Mar 13 '08 #5

P: n/a
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0700,Zach wrote:
What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?
I recommend The C Book, which is available at:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/

--
Hi, I'm a .signature virus, please copy/paste me to help me spread
all over the world.
Mar 13 '08 #6

P: n/a
WANG Cong wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0700?Zach wrote?
>What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

I recommend The C Book, which is available at:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/
This isn't suitable for a complete beginner though. IME it's even harder
than K&R2 for someone new to programming.

Mar 13 '08 #7

P: n/a
Zach wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>>
You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Hi Jacob,

I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

<http://www.winehq.org/>

Mar 13 '08 #8

P: n/a
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
Zach wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>
You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
I use a Linux OS.

You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.
The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard
Mar 13 '08 #9

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>Zach wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:

You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

I use a Linux OS.

You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in
Linux.

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines,
whether you should take that risk.
Yes well, I just mentioned the possibility, no value judgements either
way. That's up to the OP.

Mar 13 '08 #10

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>Zach wrote:
>>On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard
You are just telling lies.

You are then, a liar.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #11

P: n/a
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
WANG Cong wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0700?Zach wrote?
>>What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?

I recommend The C Book, which is available at:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/

This isn't suitable for a complete beginner though. IME it's even harder
than K&R2 for someone new to programming.
Sometimes you astonish me Santosh :-;

It seems only the past couple of days we argued about Knuth's
suitability for a new programmer ... No. It can't have happened.

Mar 13 '08 #12

P: n/a
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>Zach wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:

You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

I use a Linux OS.

You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard
What do you mean? Or are you on Jacob's case too now? Why would you
slander him and his work? Do you provide a free compiler?
Mar 13 '08 #13

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>>Zach wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.
>
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.
The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard

What do you mean? Or are you on Jacob's case too now? Why would you
slander him and his work? Do you provide a free compiler?
Look,

In "the other thread" several people started saying that
"they do not need a debugger", or that "they debug without a debugger".

I think that those are just "war stories" that they tell us in this
group since they can't be verified. Then, I said that I doubt that
anyone can DEBUG code that he/she has NOT seen/written/used when the
code size exceeds 2000 lines without a debugger.

THAT has been translated by this liar into:

"Jacob can't read code beyond 2000 lines"
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #14

P: n/a
jacob navia said:
Richard Bos wrote:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>>Zach wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.
>
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard

You are just telling lies.
"It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)" - Jacob Navia, in message
<fr**********@aioe.org>

It's hard to see how Richard Bos is misrepresenting you.
You are then, a liar.
Richard Bos and I don't always see eye to eye (in fact, I believe I'm in
his killfile), but he strikes me as being an honorable man, and he is most
certainly *not* a liar. You owe him an apology. But don't you worry about
that - just add it to the (rather high and unstable) pile.

--
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
Mar 13 '08 #15

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrote:
Richard Bos wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.
The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

You are just telling lies.

You are then, a liar.
Leet me quote your very own words:
# It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
# without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
# (bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)

If you can read code, you can debug it. If you cannot debug code without
a debugger, you cannot truly be said to be capable of reading it.
Glancing at it, perhaps. Browsing it. But reading implies the text going
through the brain as well as the eyes.

So now you call me a liar? If I were you, I'd check the slander laws in
your country.

Richard
Mar 13 '08 #16

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Richard wrote:
>rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

Zach wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
>It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
>and I try to explain things from the ground up.
>>
>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.
The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard

What do you mean? Or are you on Jacob's case too now? Why would you
slander him and his work? Do you provide a free compiler?

Look,

In "the other thread" several people started saying that
"they do not need a debugger", or that "they debug without a debugger".

I think that those are just "war stories" that they tell us in this
group since they can't be verified. Then, I said that I doubt that
anyone can DEBUG code that he/she has NOT seen/written/used when the
code size exceeds 2000 lines without a debugger.

THAT has been translated by this liar into:

"Jacob can't read code beyond 2000 lines"
No. I saw. Bos appears to be another arrogant clc prick with delusions
of grandeur. Killfile him. He's clearly got an agenda to lie and smear
your name for some reason - at least it's very apparent from his
slanderous claims about your code reading ability.
Mar 13 '08 #17

P: n/a
Richard Bos said:

<snip>
So now you call me a liar? If I were you, I'd check the slander laws in
your country.
"Slander" is usually used to describe spoken slurs. Written slurs are more
normally termed "libel".

--
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
Mar 13 '08 #18

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>WANG Cong wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0700?Zach wrote?

What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?
I recommend The C Book, which is available at:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/

This isn't suitable for a complete beginner though. IME it's even
harder than K&R2 for someone new to programming.

Sometimes you astonish me Santosh :-;

It seems only the past couple of days we argued about Knuth's
suitability for a new programmer ... No. It can't have happened.
I never claimed Knuth was suitable for beginners, except for those well
above average. I think you have me confused with Joseph Hallet, Ben
Bacarisse, user923005 and others.

And in this case, yes, IMO /The C Book/ is rather harder to follow than
K&R2 for someone not already familiar with a bit of programming.

Mar 13 '08 #19

P: n/a
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
Richard wrote:
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>>WANG Cong wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0700?Zach wrote?

What are the best websites (or HTML or PDF free books available for
download and if so where) for learning C?
>

I recommend The C Book, which is available at:
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/

This isn't suitable for a complete beginner though. IME it's even
harder than K&R2 for someone new to programming.

Sometimes you astonish me Santosh :-;

It seems only the past couple of days we argued about Knuth's
suitability for a new programmer ... No. It can't have happened.

I never claimed Knuth was suitable for beginners, except for those well
above average. I think you have me confused with Joseph Hallet, Ben
Bacarisse, user923005 and others.

And in this case, yes, IMO /The C Book/ is rather harder to follow than
K&R2 for someone not already familiar with a bit of programming.
I'm old fashioned. I know from experience and general data gathered in
years of industry that K&R2 is *generally* the best there is for new C
programmers. It was for me and I am yet to meet anyone who didn't get at
least something from it.
Mar 13 '08 #20

P: n/a

"Richard Bos" <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote in message
news:47****************@news.xs4all.nl...
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>Zach wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:

You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

I use a Linux OS.

You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.
I think that was 'other people's code'.

I have the same problem but my limit is more like 100 lines.

As for lccwin32, it's free and worth a try.

--
Bart
Mar 13 '08 #21

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia said:
>Richard Bos wrote:
>>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

Zach wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
>It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
>and I try to explain things from the ground up.
>>
>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.
The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard
You are just telling lies.

"It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)" - Jacob Navia, in message
<fr**********@aioe.org>

It's hard to see how Richard Bos is misrepresenting you.
So, You CITE me there writing
"It is impossible for any human to DEBUG a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)"
And then you CITE Bos telling

" its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of READING code beyond 2000 lines"

and you do NOT see the difference???????

WHO is lying here?

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #22

P: n/a
"Bartc" <bc@freeuk.comwrites:
"Richard Bos" <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote in message
news:47****************@news.xs4all.nl...
>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:
>>Zach wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:

You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
and I try to explain things from the ground up.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

I use a Linux OS.

You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.

The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

I think that was 'other people's code'.
Another good point actually. Even if Bos was twisting the facts to
discredit Jacob and elevate his own standing in the clc clique.
>
I have the same problem but my limit is more like 100 lines.
Yup. Give me a debugger any day. Someone elses indentation, variable
naming standards etc? No way could I (economically) understand most
largish C program in a reasonable time without watching it step
through.

How many things can the average man manage in his mind at one time? 7?

And these guys are telling is they can spot a bug in 2000+ lines of
foreign code when its 30 minutes into executing? Stackes 20 calls deep?
Sure, some obvious things maybe like catching a "=" instead of an "==",
but something else like potential integer overflow when you have no idea
what numbers are ticking throug the system.

I'm sorry. I don't buy all this crap about reading thousands of lines
and not needing a debugger. Its nothing more than, as Jacob said, War
Stories in MOST cases.
Mar 13 '08 #23

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>jacob navia said:
>>Richard Bos wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

Zach wrote:
>
>On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>>You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
>>It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
>>and I try to explain things from the ground up.
>>>
>>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in Linux.
The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard
You are just telling lies.

"It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)" - Jacob Navia, in message
<fr**********@aioe.org>

It's hard to see how Richard Bos is misrepresenting you.

So, You CITE me there writing
>"It is impossible for any human to DEBUG a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)"

And then you CITE Bos telling

" its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of READING code beyond 2000 lines"

and you do NOT see the difference???????

WHO is lying here?
I thought for one minute that Heathfield was improving. I was
wrong. He's still an ego driven big head with no agenda other than
furthering his own agenda and discrediting others at every
opportunity. This thread has proven that without a shadow of a doubt. I
am truly astonished he has supported Bos when he is so clearly ignoring
the evidence and the obvious meanings of what was said.
Mar 13 '08 #24

P: n/a
Richard said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
<snip>
>So debugging is a voyage of discovery - of increasing your understanding
of the code. You *cannot* debug code effectively without understanding
that code, and you *cannot* understand that code effectively if you have
not

This is not true.
If you believe that (and I have no reason to believe that you don't), then
I don't think we have sufficient common ground to justify holding a
reasoned discussion about this.

<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
Mar 13 '08 #25

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
If you can read code, you can debug it.
Sure

Yes. No problems. You just read it, then, all bugs surface
and you do not need a debugger Mr Superman.

THEN, you put your Clarck Kent clothes and there you go,
Richard Bos is there.
If you cannot debug code without
a debugger, you cannot truly be said to be capable of reading it.
Yeah obvious. I am not a computer, yes, my fault.
Glancing at it, perhaps. Browsing it. But reading implies the text going
through the brain as well as the eyes.
My BRAIN, yes, but there is NO computer in my brain.

YOU of course, you ARE a computer.
So now you call me a liar? If I were you, I'd check the slander laws in
your country.
A liar is a liar is a LIAR!

READING code is not DEBUGGING code moron!
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #26

P: n/a
Richard said:

<snip>
I thought for one minute that Heathfield was improving. I was
wrong.
No, you were right - I'm improving all the time. It's just that what you
think of as "improving" and what I think of as "improving" are obviously
very different.
He's still an ego driven big head with no agenda other than
furthering his own agenda and discrediting others at every
opportunity.
If that were true, I would be attacking Richard Bos, rather than supporting
him.

--
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
Mar 13 '08 #27

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Richard said:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
<snip>
>>So debugging is a voyage of discovery - of increasing your understanding
of the code. You *cannot* debug code effectively without understanding
that code, and you *cannot* understand that code effectively if you have
not
This is not true.

If you believe that (and I have no reason to believe that you don't), then
I don't think we have sufficient common ground to justify holding a
reasoned discussion about this.

<snip>
Hey Heathfield, better answer my reply and do not go silent again OK?

Here is my reply again incase you forgot:

So, You CITE me there writing
"It is impossible for any human to DEBUG a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)"
And then you CITE Bos telling

" its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of READING code beyond 2000 lines"

and you do NOT see the difference???????

WHO is lying here?
Or you are saying that debugging is the same as reading?
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #28

P: n/a
jacob navia said:

<snip>
A liar is a liar is a LIAR!

READING code is not DEBUGGING code moron!
I'm not entirely sure that I would want to trust my code base to someone
whose contributions to a discussion consist largely of insults, shouting,
and abuse.

--
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
Mar 13 '08 #29

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia said:

<snip>
>A liar is a liar is a LIAR!

READING code is not DEBUGGING code moron!

I'm not entirely sure that I would want to trust my code base to someone
whose contributions to a discussion consist largely of insults, shouting,
and abuse.
When I write:
"It is impossible for any human to DEBUG a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)"
And you CITE Bos telling

" its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of READING code beyond 2000 lines"

and you do NOT see the difference???????

WHO is lying here?

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #30

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>jacob navia said:

<snip>
>>A liar is a liar is a LIAR!

READING code is not DEBUGGING code moron!
I'm not entirely sure that I would want to trust my code base to
someone whose contributions to a discussion consist largely of
insults, shouting, and abuse.

When I write:
>"It is impossible for any human to DEBUG a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)"

And you CITE Bos telling

" its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of READING code beyond 2000 lines"

and you do NOT see the difference???????

WHO is lying here?
Jacob, ignore him. Heathfield is trolling. He must be. No one could
support Bos's claims in this thread - it's quite clue that his self
regard eclipses that of even RH.
Mar 13 '08 #31

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>jacob navia said:
>>Richard Bos wrote:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

Zach wrote:
>
>On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>>You can download my tutorial, and the compiler that goes with it.
>>It is an easy system to install (6MB download, 30 second install)
>>and I try to explain things from the ground up.
>>>
>>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>I use a Linux OS.
You can still use lcc-win32 (and it's executables) under WINE in
Linux.
The right question, given that its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of reading code beyond 2000 lines, whether
you should take that risk.

Richard
You are just telling lies.

"It is impossible for any human to debug a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)" - Jacob Navia, in message
<fr**********@aioe.org>

It's hard to see how Richard Bos is misrepresenting you.

So, You CITE me there writing
"It is impossible for any human to DEBUG a program written by others
without a debugger, of course if the program has a certain size
(bigger than, say, 1500 -2000 lines)"

And then you CITE Bos telling

" its author is (by his own admission, in
that other thread) incapable of READING code beyond 2000 lines"

and you do NOT see the difference???????

WHO is lying here?
NOTE:

Heathfield is unable to answer this post. Even if I posted it to him
3 times...

:-)
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #32

P: n/a
jacob navia said:

<snip>
Hey Heathfield, better answer my reply and do not go silent again OK?
Mr Navia, if you must address me in person, kindly have the courtesy to
address me properly.

I did not post an answer to your previous reply ("So, You CITE me there
writing...") because I had already posted another reply in the same
thread, explaining my point of view with regard to the relationship
between reading and debugging, so it seemed superfluous to write the same
stuff all over again in a reply to your article.

What's more, just as you have the right either to reply or not to reply to
particular articles, so do I have that right. There is no need for me to
reply to every article, not even every article that is a reply to one of
mine. (If everyone replied to every reply to their articles, ... well, do
the math.) You get to decide which articles you write, and I get to decide
which articles I write.
Here is my reply again incase you forgot:
I have already explained my position elsethread.

--
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
Mar 13 '08 #33

P: n/a
Morris Dovey wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>A code base bigger than 1500 lines is no longer debuggable in an
abstract sense just by reading code. It needs a debugger.

I'll join the thread because I'm becoming bored and irritated
with this whole business...

Like others here I've routinely debugged code considerably bigger
than 1500 lines by inspection.

The most recent large code base was that of a cable modem with at
least one of most of the interfaces I'd seen in the previous five
years and a number that were new to me. The software I debugged
by inspection - and the hardware I debugged by writing some
special-purpose code to force hardware errors. That special
purpose code was debugged by inspection.
Obvious.

You have been working for years and years in communications/network
sofwtare. You know most of the interfaces, and even if they are "new"
they do more or less the same stuff that you know very well.
The project before that I debugged the multicast networking
interfaces on an n-tier network monstrosity, again by inspection
of code. After I'd made the first round of code changes, I wrote
some special-purpose code to examine impacts of loading and
timings on overall throughput during actual (production)
operation. This time the special-purpose code was debugged by
inspection and peer review _before_ insertion because the folks
in charge were insistant that I not induce a failure. The results
of that examination were used to produce a heuristic modification
to the multicast interface that caused it continually
Peer review is very good yes, but it is surely NOT debugging!
You are confusing peer review, that allows people to get rid of
bugs before they enter the code base, from DEBUGGING, i.e. FINDING
the problem once it is inside the code base!

I am NOT saying that reading the code is bad, or that peer review is
bad, that would be completely absurd. What I am saying is with
some level of complexity the brain is just unable to follow, because
the brain is not a computer!
self-(re)tune for maximum speed with a an absolute minimum of
loading-induced failures. That code, also, was pre-debugged by
inspection and peer review.
The code was subject to a good peer reviw. That is very good method, but
it is a DIFFERENT activity than debugging, see above.
I'm not sure how large their code
base is - but I'm absolutely cerain that I worked my way through
several hundred times what you set as the upper limit to debug by
inspection.

There actually are times when the job simply has to be done by
looking at the source and mentally emulating the execution.
This is very good too, but *it has limits*, and I would say
that the 1500-2000 lines is just a over sized limit!

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 13 '08 #34

P: n/a
Morris Dovey <mr*****@iedu.comwrites:
jacob navia wrote:
>A code base bigger than 1500 lines is no longer debuggable in an
abstract sense just by reading code. It needs a debugger.

I'll join the thread because I'm becoming bored and irritated
with this whole business...

Like others here I've routinely debugged code considerably bigger
than 1500 lines by inspection.
And like others, you have totally failed to recognise the reasons and
criteria for stating the importance of a debugger.

You have routinely debugged code you are very familiar with.

You continually confuse peer review with post release bug finding in a
foreign code bade.

You continually fail to recognise that your reading technique can ONLY be
facilitated in the great majority of cases by ALSO using a debugger to
alter the program state at critical moments. it would take nothing
away. And that is reason enough for using one for a professional - it
can only improve the debugging session in most cases.
Mar 13 '08 #35

P: n/a
On 13 Mar, 15:01, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
A code base bigger than 1500 lines is no longer debuggable in an
abstract sense just by reading code. It needs a debugger.
I'll join the thread because I'm becoming bored and irritated
with this whole business...
Like others here I've routinely debugged code considerably bigger
than 1500 lines by inspection.
The most recent large code base was that of a cable modem with at
least one of most of the interfaces I'd seen in the previous five
years and a number that were new to me. The software I debugged
by inspection - and the hardware I debugged by writing some
special-purpose code to force hardware errors. That special
purpose code was debugged by inspection.

Obvious.

You have been working for years and years in communications/network
sofwtare. You know most of the interfaces, and even if they are "new"
they do more or less the same stuff that you know very well.
The project before that I debugged the multicast networking
interfaces on an n-tier network monstrosity, again by inspection
of code. After I'd made the first round of code changes, I wrote
some special-purpose code to examine impacts of loading and
timings on overall throughput during actual (production)
operation. This time the special-purpose code was debugged by
inspection and peer review _before_ insertion because the folks
in charge were insistant that I not induce a failure. The results
of that examination were used to produce a heuristic modification
to the multicast interface that caused it continually

Peer review is very good yes, but it is surely NOT debugging!
and you wonder why people get p***ed off with you.
Debugging is the detection, isolation and removal
of errors. It can be done in avariety of ways.
Including walk thrus and desk checks.

You are confusing peer review, that allows people to get rid of
bugs before they enter the code base, from DEBUGGING, i.e. FINDING
the problem once it is inside the code base!
often the aim is not to let them in the first place.

I am NOT saying that reading the code is bad, or that peer review is
bad, that would be completely absurd. What I am saying is with
some level of complexity the brain is just unable to follow, because
the brain is not a computer!
yet Eric claims he can. Is he mistaken?

<snip>

look Jacob, your claim has been refuted suffiently often
that you *know* it isn't true. So why repeat it? This is
trolling.

so for now v-plonk.
--
Nick Keighley

Mar 13 '08 #36

P: n/a
jacob navia said:

<snip>
Peer review is very good yes, but it is surely NOT debugging!
Yes, it is. It's one way to remove bugs from code - i.e. to "de-bug" the
code. It is, of course, not the only way.
You are confusing peer review, that allows people to get rid of
bugs before they enter the code base, from DEBUGGING, i.e. FINDING
the problem once it is inside the code base!
This may be a definition clash. I view "the code base" as "all the code
that has so far been written for the project", whereas you seem to think
that "the code base" means code that has been through peer review. Neither
view is inherently wrong, but they are rather different from each other.

The way I see it, the sooner you get the bugs out, the better. If you can
get them out while you're typing them, good! If you can get some more out
during your trial executions of the code, that's great! If you can get
even more out at peer review, that's wonderful! Just as long as you get
them out. And if they get into what /you/ call the code base, that's bad,
but presumably there's still the test phase (pace, TDD folks!). It's a bit
of a last-ditch time at which to do debugging, but hey, as long as it's
done, that's what matters. And *all* of these are attempts to remove bugs
from - i.e. to "de-bug" - the code.
I am NOT saying that reading the code is bad, or that peer review is
bad,
I recognise this.
that would be completely absurd. What I am saying is with
some level of complexity the brain is just unable to follow, because
the brain is not a computer!
I agree that there is an upper limit to what the brain can tackle in a
reasonable time. I think the limit is higher than you claim, however, and
I also think that modular development can ease this problem. Indeed, that
is the whole *point* of modular development.

<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
Mar 13 '08 #37

P: n/a
Nick Keighley <ni******************@hotmail.comwrites:
On 13 Mar, 15:01, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>You are confusing peer review, that allows people to get rid of
bugs before they enter the code base, from DEBUGGING, i.e. FINDING
the problem once it is inside the code base!

often the aim is not to let them in the first place.
Your conceit is astonishing. You are advising us that the aim is not to
let bugs in in the first place? Really? CLC is exceeding itself in this
thread.

Stop the clock everyone! We've been doing it all wrong!

Nick has proven that debuggers are useless!

Just don't make any bugs in the first place!!!!

Mar 13 '08 #38

P: n/a
Richard <de***@gmail.comwrites:
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
>Richard wrote:
>>santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
>>>This isn't suitable for a complete beginner though. IME it's even
harder than K&R2 for someone new to programming.

Sometimes you astonish me Santosh :-;

It seems only the past couple of days we argued about Knuth's
suitability for a new programmer ... No. It can't have happened.

I never claimed Knuth was suitable for beginners, except for those well
above average. I think you have me confused with Joseph Hallet, Ben
Bacarisse, user923005 and others.

And in this case, yes, IMO /The C Book/ is rather harder to follow than
K&R2 for someone not already familiar with a bit of programming.

I'm old fashioned. I know from experience and general data gathered in
years of industry that K&R2 is *generally* the best there is for new C
programmers. It was for me and I am yet to meet anyone who didn't get at
least something from it.
K&R2 is excellent for a new C programmer with some programming
experience. It's been said that it may be too advanced for someone
who's completely new to programming. (I offer no opinion on the
latter statement; I'm just pointing out a distinction that you may
have missed.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Mar 13 '08 #39

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote, On 13/03/08 12:07:
Zach said:
<snip>
>Are we allowed to post questions in this channel
about the K&R Exercise?

Yes.
>I saw there is an official answer book but it costs $60 or
some insane price for such a small book!

See also http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/ which contains a K&R answers section.
You can also post questions about the answers that are on the CLC Wiki.
At least some of the people who wrote those answers still post here, and
new alternative solutions, improvements, and answers to questions which
do not have them are always welcome.
--
Flash Gordon
Provider of the server running the CLC Wiki.
Mar 13 '08 #40

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:mq******************************@bt.com...
jacob navia said:
>This reminds me about the stack discussion...

Yes, you never understood that one, either.
>"There is no stack in C"...

The C language specification is written in such a way as not to require C
implementations to use a stack. If you disagree with that, let's see
chapter and verse. If you agree, however, then you are agreeing with the
very people you ridicule.
These Standards have a lot to answer for.

My C99 spec doesn't seem to mention the word 'Computer' anywhere either, but
I bet a computer does figure in most implementations.

--
Bart


Mar 13 '08 #41

P: n/a
"Bartc" <bc@freeuk.comwrites:
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:mq******************************@bt.com...
>jacob navia said:
>>This reminds me about the stack discussion...

Yes, you never understood that one, either.
No. You were being a pedantic fool once more.
>>
>>"There is no stack in C"...

The C language specification is written in such a way as not to require C
implementations to use a stack. If you disagree with that, let's see
But most do. So they are on topic when discussing people debugging
standard compliant C using a tool such as a DEBUGGER! .......
>chapter and verse. If you agree, however, then you are agreeing with the
very people you ridicule.
You ridicule yourself with your pretentious and quite ridiculous
posturing.
>
These Standards have a lot to answer for.

My C99 spec doesn't seem to mention the word 'Computer' anywhere either, but
I bet a computer does figure in most implementations.
Not for these lads. They can compile and "debug" a 3000 line program of
other peoples code for up to 10 years into a run by merely reading the
printout. This is the type of legends you are dealing with here. Not
only that but they take into account all issues which might come from
float rounding, integer overflows, bugs in linked libraries, memory
allocation failures, lost memory etc. Amazing eh? I put it all down to
them reading Knuth at the age of 6.

Mar 13 '08 #42

P: n/a
In article <Bd******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Peter Seebach once claimed that he is a conforming C
implementation
In that case you'll need this:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.mi...a39956fab3db26

-- Richard
--
:wq
Mar 13 '08 #43

P: n/a
ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article <Bd******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>Peter Seebach once claimed that he is a conforming C
implementation

In that case you'll need this:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.mi...a39956fab3db26

-- Richard
I doubt that. Heathfield probably just needs a photo to read.

Mar 14 '08 #44

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:Bd******************************@bt.com...
Bartc said:
>"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:mq******************************@bt.com...
>>jacob navia said:
>>>This reminds me about the stack discussion...

Yes, you never understood that one, either.

"There is no stack in C"...

The C language specification is written in such a way as not to require
C implementations to use a stack.
>My C99 spec doesn't seem to mention the word 'Computer' anywhere either,
but I bet a computer does figure in most implementations.
Nevertheless, a computer is not, strictly speaking, required for a C
implementation....it would be perfectly possible,
albeit unwieldy, to implement C on a model railway, using nothing but
normal track (and, I think, three different kinds of points). It sounds
utterly bizarre, but it is nevertheless true.
I give up. How does it work?

--
Bart

Mar 14 '08 #45

P: n/a
Bartc said:
>
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:Bd******************************@bt.com...
<snip>
>...it would be perfectly possible,
albeit unwieldy, to implement C on a model railway, using nothing but
normal track (and, I think, three different kinds of points). It sounds
utterly bizarre, but it is nevertheless true.

I give up. How does it work?
Well, I base my statement on two facts:

1) any computable problem (including C compilation) can be computed on a
Turing machine;
2) a Turing machine can be implemented on a model railway (given the
existence of three particular kinds of points).

You set up the initial state by setting points (each can be in either of
two states, so they are effectively bits), and you read off the final
state after the engine has whizzed round the track.

To make everything work is distinctly non-trivial, but it /is/ possible.
Papers have been published on this, and there is even a detailed
exposition of the "Turing tape" reader and writer track layouts in a
mathematics book (which, right now, I can't find, obviously).

--
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
Mar 14 '08 #46

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
2) a Turing machine can be implemented on a model railway (given the
existence of three particular kinds of points).
I did _not_ know that. That is really freaking cool, and I guess that
goes a long way towards explaining why the world's very first,
original hackers, were model railway clubbers, and why their
fascination with railroad switches translated so smoothly to computer
hacking.

--
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...
http://micah.cowan.name/
Mar 14 '08 #47

P: n/a
On 2008-03-14, Micah Cowan <mi***@cowan.namewrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>2) a Turing machine can be implemented on a model railway (given the
existence of three particular kinds of points).

I did _not_ know that. That is really freaking cool, and I guess that
goes a long way towards explaining why the world's very first,
original hackers, were model railway clubbers, and why their
fascination with railroad switches translated so smoothly to computer
hacking.
For details, you can have a look at
http://www.monochrom.at/turingtraint.../Chalcraft.pdf
http://www.scoriton.demon.co.uk/

Marc Boyer
Mar 14 '08 #48

P: n/a
Eric IsWhoIAm wrote:
It appears to me that the biggest topic of dispute is Mr. Heathfield's
definition of "reading" up to approximately 2,000 lines of code. I would
like to present my views on this topic, and then hopefully the primary
parties will present their views thereafter.

First of all, I believe that Jacob Navia and Richard (I am not certain of
the last name) believe that merely reading code does not instill within them
the ability to debug it. To them, then, reading it may be like reading a
newspaper: They read some parts here and understand it, they read some parts
there and understand it, but debugging it without a special tool (a
debugger) would be like single-handedly trying to change the political slant
of a newspaper. (Yeah, I know, I'm kind of stretching it here... just bear
with me, please.)

On the other hand, it would appear that Richard Bos and Richard Heathfield
view the reading of code to be more akin to reading a really good book: They
get so in depth with it, that they are able to truly understand all of its
intricacies and dependencies, and are thus able to see when something
doesn't "make sense" (like, for example, when a character that was in one
area suddenly appears to be in another area -- the author goofed and forgot
who was where).

Is this accurate? I look forward to your responses.
I doubt that anyone with a normal brain can read and understand
more than 1500-2000 lines of code (foreign code, i.e. code that
you read for the first time), and be able to find complex problems
with it.

You can find obvious one, and maybe (if you are very good) subtle ones.
For the difficult bugs however, a toold like a debugger is essential.

The limitations of the brain are obvious here. In software, only
brains introduce bugs when building software, never the machines,
and almost never the compilers/linkers, etc.

Why?

Because the only circuit that can write software is the human circuit.
All errors go to that circuit then.

The problem with it, as I have stated several times in this discussion,
is that it can't do what machines routinely do: executing thousands
of times the same calculation without any problems, quickly and
without errors.

Why do bugs exist?

Because the human mind is like that: error prone. And it has
a lot of difficulties in following and executing symbollically
all possibilities of a program.

That is why bugs appear.

Obviously, I doubt greatly that people can just read more than
2000 lines of C and find a significant error inside.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Mar 14 '08 #49

P: n/a
Bartc <bc@freeuk.comwrote:
>
My C99 spec doesn't seem to mention the word 'Computer' anywhere either
No, but it does mention "data-processing system" a number of times, and
that's essentially the same thing.

-Larry Jones

Even though we're both talking english, we're not speaking the same language.
-- Calvin
Mar 14 '08 #50

51 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.