By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,952 Members | 1,416 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,952 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Cross-platform: Coloured text, Networking, Multithreading

P: n/a

I'm currently writing a program and I've got in mind to keep it as
portable as possible. In particular I want it to run on Linux and
Windows, but I'm also keeping an open mind to any machine that has a
screen and is capable of Ethernet networking. The program requires
three things that aren't available in the C Standard:
1) Coloured text (for a console application)
2) Raw socket networking
3) Multithreading

For number 1, I've already written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses ANSI escape sequences for Linux, and Win32 API
functions for Windows).

For number 2, I've again written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses Berkeley Sockets for Linux, and winpcap for Windows
-- I would have used Winsock for Windows but Winsock no longer
supports raw sockets).

For number 3, well I'm just about to delve into it now. I see that
somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to Win32, so that
looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go down that road
though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea than to use
pthreads?
Nov 12 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
42 Replies


P: n/a
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
I'm currently writing a program and I've got in mind to keep it as
portable as possible. In particular I want it to run on Linux and
Windows, but I'm also keeping an open mind to any machine that has a
screen and is capable of Ethernet networking. The program requires
three things that aren't available in the C Standard:
1) Coloured text (for a console application)
2) Raw socket networking
3) Multithreading

For number 1, I've already written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses ANSI escape sequences for Linux, and Win32 API
functions for Windows).

For number 2, I've again written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses Berkeley Sockets for Linux, and winpcap for Windows
-- I would have used Winsock for Windows but Winsock no longer
supports raw sockets).

For number 3, well I'm just about to delve into it now. I see that
somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to Win32, so that
looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go down that road
though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea than to use
pthreads?
Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?

No, never mind, that's too obvious, where's the adventure in
getting useful answers from experts when you could instead get a
boatload of nonsense from non-experts? Much more entertaining to
do it your way, I suppose.

--
Er*********@sun.com
Nov 12 '08 #2

P: n/a
On Nov 12, 6:00 pm, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <t...@lavabit.comwrote:
I'm currently writing a program and I've got in mind to keep it as
portable as possible. In particular I want it to run on Linux and
Windows, but I'm also keeping an open mind to any machine that has a
screen and is capable of Ethernet networking. The program requires
three things that aren't available in the C Standard:
1) Coloured text (for a console application)
2) Raw socket networking
3) Multithreading

For number 1, I've already written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses ANSI escape sequences for Linux, and Win32 API
functions for Windows).
How cute. Why do we need to know all this?
For number 2, I've again written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses Berkeley Sockets for Linux, and winpcap for Windows
-- I would have used Winsock for Windows but Winsock no longer
supports raw sockets).
How cute. Why do we need to know all this?
For number 3, well I'm just about to delve into it now. I see that
somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to Win32, so that
looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go down that road
though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea than to use
pthreads?
So you're asking about threading, concurrency, and thread libraries in
comp.lang.c. You're going to have to try harder if you expect to troll
someone. (hint: try an unrelated rant about gypsies in your post)
Nov 12 '08 #3

P: n/a
On Nov 12, 11:27*pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.comwrote:
Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?

Your sarcasm is a little addictive but I'll try to resist. I asked the
question on comp.lang.c because I'm writing a program in C.

I could imagine, if I asked the question over on c.p.t, that they'd
direct me here.
Nov 12 '08 #4

P: n/a
In article <1226507251.342302@news1nwk>,
Eric Sosman <Er*********@sun.comwrote:
....
No, never mind, that's too obvious, where's the adventure in
getting useful answers from experts when you could instead get a
boatload of nonsense from non-experts? Much more entertaining to
do it your way, I suppose.
Thank you for confirming everything I (and other truth tellers, er, I
mean, trolls) have been saying about CLC for years.

(That this newsgroup is populated by a bunch of nattering fools.)
Nov 12 '08 #5

P: n/a
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:27 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.comwrote:
>Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?


Your sarcasm is a little addictive but I'll try to resist. I asked the
question on comp.lang.c because I'm writing a program in C.
When you write your automobile crash simulator in C, be sure
to come here with your questions about the deformation energies
of carbon-fiber composite structural members.

When you use C to write the control program for a microwave
oven, be sure to come here with your questions about safe cooking
times and temperatures for various foodstuffs.

When you're using C to solve differential equations, be sure
to come here with your questions about the relative merits of
Runge-Kutta methods vs. Adams-Bashforth/Adams-Moulton methods.

When you're using C to render synthetic images, be sure to
come here with your questions about the relative efficacy of
different depth cues on texture-mapped non-flat surfaces.

If you want to know anything at all about any subject
whatsoever, Tomás, all you need to do is write a C program --
or even just contemplate writing a C program -- that somehow
touches on that subject, however remotely, and then bring
all your questions here. Here in comp.lang.c you will find
self-styled experts in every conceivable branch of knowledge,
happy to answer any question you might pose. "I'm planning
to write a C program to simulate the actions of God Almighty.
Can somebody please tell me why He rested on the seventh day?
Exactly how tired was He, and what does His tiredness imply
about His omnipotence?"

--
Er*********@sun.com
Nov 12 '08 #6

P: n/a

"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@shell.xmission.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:gf*********@news.xmission.com...
>
You will soon learn that this newsgroup is about everything except C.
So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)
Nov 12 '08 #7

P: n/a
In article <49***********************@reader5.news.tin.it>,
Lorenzo Villari <vl****@alice.itwrote:
>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@shell.xmission.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:gf*********@news.xmission.com...
>>
You will soon learn that this newsgroup is about everything except C.

So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)
Exactly.

As I've pointed out many times in the past, the (real, core) problem is
simply that this group is misnamed. If it were named something like
comp.lang.obscurely_academic.iso-only.andNothingElse, then the
discussions occurring here would be entirely correct and justified.

Or, to put it another way, the people who should have gone out and
created (new-grouped) c.l.o.i.a decided instead to invade and take over
this group. And things haven't been the same since.

Nov 12 '08 #8

P: n/a
On 12 Nov 2008 at 16:27, Eric Sosman wrote:
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>I see that somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to
Win32, so that looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go
down that road though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea
than to use pthreads?

Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?
Oh come on, Eric - it hardly takes a world expert on threading to be
able to say that pthreads is an excellent choice, and if it's available
on all the target platforms then go for it.

Nov 12 '08 #9

P: n/a
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:27 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.comwrote:
>Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?


Your sarcasm is a little addictive but I'll try to resist. I asked the
question on comp.lang.c because I'm writing a program in C.
There is _no_ sarcasm in the suggestion that when using features that
are not standard C but which have supporting newsgroups that you not ask
in a newsgroup for C (where those features are not topical) but in a
newsgroup specifically for those features (where those features are
obviously topical).

When you write programs using threads, something not supported by C but
by specific implementations on specific platforms, you are outside the
realm of writing programs in C.
I could imagine, if I asked the question over on c.p.t, that they'd
direct me here.
Then they have no idea of what either C or threads are. I can't believe
that the folks in cpt are that clueless. But if your post is any
indication, ...
Nov 12 '08 #10

P: n/a
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail.com wrote:
>How cute. Why do we need to know all this?
Because your head is vacuous and I wanted to offer you a filler.
I suppose you think that is clever. It only marks you as at least one
of an idiot or a boor. You haven't yet made it to my killfile, but keep
it up and you will. I suspect that several people who could have been
useful to you when you have a legitimate C question will have already
sent you to their bozo bins.
Nov 12 '08 #11

P: n/a
In article <gf**********@news.eternal-september.org>,
Martin "Mr. Compassion" Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.netwrote:
>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>How cute. Why do we need to know all this?
>Because your head is vacuous and I wanted to offer you a filler.

I suppose you think that is clever. It only marks you as at least one
of an idiot or a boor. You haven't yet made it to my killfile, but keep
it up and you will. I suspect that several people who could have been
useful to you when you have a legitimate C question will have already
sent you to their bozo bins.
IOW, welcome to CLC. We hope you enjoy your stay.

Nov 12 '08 #12

P: n/a
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:27�pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@sun.comwrote:
Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?


Your sarcasm is a little addictive but I'll try to resist. I asked the
question on comp.lang.c because I'm writing a program in C.
So, by the same logic, if you were writing a program that accumulated
football statistics, you'd feel that the fact that it was written in C
was sufficiently good reason to post questions here about football
arcana relevant to your program?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic; but I'm also curious about how you reached
such a bizarre conclusion.

Nov 12 '08 #13

P: n/a
On Nov 12, 1:54 pm, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalidwrote:
On 12 Nov 2008 at 16:27, Eric Sosman wrote:
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
I see that somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to
Win32, so that looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go
down that road though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea
than to use pthreads?
Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?

Oh come on, Eric - it hardly takes a world expert on threading to be
able to say that pthreads is an excellent choice, and if it's available
on all the target platforms then go for it.
Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know
that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the pthread
model
thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread based mutexes.
I remember being burned by this a few years back. I have no idea if
it is still a problem. This is the problem with non-expert advice,
not only are the non-experts ignorant of something, they may well
think
that they are not (The bug was subtle and didn't hit at first.
Before
that my advice would have been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully
used
these when I needed Linux/Windows compatibility").

- William Hughes

Nov 12 '08 #14

P: n/a
William Hughes wrote:
On Nov 12, 1:54 pm, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalidwrote:
>On 12 Nov 2008 at 16:27, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
I see that somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to
Win32, so that looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go
down that road though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea
than to use pthreads?
Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?
Oh come on, Eric - it hardly takes a world expert on threading to be
able to say that pthreads is an excellent choice, and if it's available
on all the target platforms then go for it.

Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know
that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the pthread
model
thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread based mutexes.
I remember being burned by this a few years back. I have no idea if
it is still a problem. This is the problem with non-expert advice,
not only are the non-experts ignorant of something, they may well
think
that they are not (The bug was subtle and didn't hit at first.
Before
that my advice would have been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully
used
these when I needed Linux/Windows compatibility").
Exactly. What Twink has demonstrated is that it hardly takes
an expert to spout nonsense, but that it may take an expert to
spot it.

No matter what forum Tomás selects for his questions on threads
(or on any other topic), he will probably get answers that are a
mixture of sense and nonsense. On a forum where experts hang out
the nonsense will be rebutted; on a forum where the experts are
scarce it may go unchallenged.

--
Er*********@sun.com
Nov 12 '08 #15

P: n/a

"William Hughes" <wp*******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:97**********************************@r36g2000 prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 1:54 pm, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalidwrote:
On 12 Nov 2008 at 16:27, Eric Sosman wrote:
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>I see that somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to
>Win32, so that looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go
>down that road though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea
>than to use pthreads?
Perhaps you could ask in comp.programming.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?
Oh come on, Eric - it hardly takes a world expert on threading to be
able to say that pthreads is an excellent choice, and if it's available
on all the target platforms then go for it.
Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know
that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the pthread
model
thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread based mutexes.
I remember being burned by this a few years back. I have no idea if
it is still a problem. This is the problem with non-expert advice,
not only are the non-experts ignorant of something, they may well
think
that they are not (The bug was subtle and didn't hit at first.
Before
that my advice would have been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully
used
these when I needed Linux/Windows compatibility").
There are several options wrt porting some PThread applications over to
Windows:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/i.../bb380242.aspx

http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32

http://www.cygwin.com

Nov 12 '08 #16

P: n/a
"Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalidwrites:
"William Hughes" <wp*******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:97**********************************@r36g2000 prf.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the
pthread model thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread
based mutexes. I remember being burned by this a few years back.
I have no idea if it is still a problem. This is the problem with
non-expert advice, not only are the non-experts ignorant of
something, they may well think that they are not (The bug was
subtle and didn't hit at first. Before that my advice would have
been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully used these when I needed
Linux/Windows compatibility").

There are several options wrt porting some PThread applications over
to Windows:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/i.../bb380242.aspx

http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32

http://www.cygwin.com
That may be true, but it doesn't address the concerns raised by
William Hughes. Once again, the folks in comp.programming.threads are
likely to know a lot more about this than we are.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Nov 12 '08 #17

P: n/a
Lorenzo Villari said:
>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@shell.xmission.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:gf*********@news.xmission.com...
>>
You will soon learn that this newsgroup is about everything except C.

So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)
Note that Mr McCormack is either lying, incorrect, or making a not very
successful foray into the world of sarcasm.

comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.

For discussing things that aren't ISO C, we already have over 80,000
newsgroups. Why would we need yet another?

--
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
Nov 13 '08 #18

P: n/a
Martin Ambuhl said:
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>How cute. Why do we need to know all this?
>Because your head is vacuous and I wanted to offer you a filler.

I suppose you think that is clever. It only marks you as at least one
of an idiot or a boor.
Possibly both.
You haven't yet made it to my killfile, but keep
it up and you will. I suspect that several people who could have been
useful to you when you have a legitimate C question will have already
sent you to their bozo bins.
Yes. He hit my killfile some months ago, for racism, of all things.

I find it surprising that so many people who witnessed that discussion and
should therefore be aware of his racist attitude continue to enter into
further technical discussions with him despite the absence of any apology
or retraction on his behalf. (But then I find many things surprising.)

--
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
Nov 13 '08 #19

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
(But then I find many things surprising.)
When you stop, worry.

--
Ian Collins
Nov 13 '08 #20

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.

(not trolling) but the suggestion is *not* redundant.

It comes with the suggestion that the name comp.lang.iso-c would provide a
clearer label for those ill-informed about the current use of comp.lang.c

--
Chris.
Nov 13 '08 #21

P: n/a
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:41:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Lorenzo Villari said:
>>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@shell.xmission.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:gf*********@news.xmission.com...
>>>
You will soon learn that this newsgroup is about everything except C.

So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)

Note that Mr McCormack is either lying, incorrect, or making a not very
successful foray into the world of sarcasm.

comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.

For discussing things that aren't ISO C, we already have over 80,000
newsgroups. Why would we need yet another?
It is arguable that there is no group that is about programming
in C, and even that comp.lang.c used to be that group.
Richard Harter, cr*@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
Nov 13 '08 #22

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.


(not trolling) but the suggestion is *not* redundant.

It comes with the suggestion that the name comp.lang.iso-c would provide a
clearer label for those ill-informed about the current use of comp.lang.c
The groupname field was not designed to be an all encompassing
definition of its purpose.

Take the groups ending in .tv - related to audiovisual entertainment, or
cross-dressing, or the state of Tuvalu, or what? There are alt. groups
that have highly cryptic names on purpose. Do you propose to go through
the entire hierarchy and enforce descriptive names? Won't work. For one
thing, the groupname is too short. For another, defining the group is
the charter or equivalent is for. For a third, if you lurk for a few
days the topicality will be clear. If you still can't figure out the
topicality, you can always ask.

Some servers seem to support a description field, but I suspect few new
users bother to read those.

Nov 13 '08 #23

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:Iq******************************@bt.com...
>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
Yes. He hit my killfile some months ago, for racism, of all things.

I find it surprising that so many people who witnessed that discussion and
should therefore be aware of his racist attitude continue to enter into
further technical discussions with him despite the absence of any apology
or retraction on his behalf. (But then I find many things surprising.)
Well, some people are more tolerant than others.

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:Iq******************************@bt.com...
Lorenzo Villari said:
>So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)
comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.
There is already c.l.c.moderated, which could serve the purpose of the
..iso-c suggestion.

I don't have a problem with c.l.c being wider-ranging, especially as it's
not very active at the minute.
--
Bartc

Nov 13 '08 #24

P: n/a
On 13 Nov, 03:46, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Martin Ambuhl said:
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it surprising that so many people who witnessed that discussion and
should therefore be aware of [Tomás Ó hÉilidhe's] racist attitude continue
to enter into
further technical discussions with him despite the absence of any apology
or retraction on his behalf. (But then I find many things surprising.)
unfortunatly my killfile is stored in memory (my memory!) and is
hence unreliable

--
Nick Keighley

Nov 13 '08 #25

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@TROUSERSspamcop.netwrites:
>Chris McDonald wrote:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>>comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.


(not trolling) but the suggestion is *not* redundant.

It comes with the suggestion that the name comp.lang.iso-c would provide a
clearer label for those ill-informed about the current use of comp.lang.c
>The groupname field was not designed to be an all encompassing
definition of its purpose.
>Take the groups ending in .tv - related to audiovisual entertainment, or
cross-dressing, or the state of Tuvalu, or what? There are alt. groups
that have highly cryptic names on purpose. Do you propose to go through
the entire hierarchy and enforce descriptive names? Won't work. For one
thing, the groupname is too short. For another, defining the group is
the charter or equivalent is for. For a third, if you lurk for a few
days the topicality will be clear. If you still can't figure out the
topicality, you can always ask.
>Some servers seem to support a description field, but I suspect few new
users bother to read those.

All true, but no-one proposed reviewing and changing all group names.
My comment was simply that the original suggestion was not redundant.

Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.

It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.

--
Chris.
Nov 13 '08 #26

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
[...]
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
Since C is *defined* by various generations of ISO documents,
a better proposal would be comp.lang.c and comp.lang.pidgin-c or
comp.lang.c-variants or comp.lang.c-ish.
It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.
The first-time posters are not the problem. The trouble is
with the repeat offenders, those who know better but choose worse.

--
Er*********@sun.com

Nov 13 '08 #27

P: n/a
Eric Sosman <Er*********@sun.comwrites:
Chris McDonald wrote:
>[...]
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.

Since C is *defined* by various generations of ISO documents,
a better proposal would be comp.lang.c and comp.lang.pidgin-c or
comp.lang.c-variants or comp.lang.c-ish.
>It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.

The first-time posters are not the problem. The trouble is
with the repeat offenders, those who know better but choose worse.
In fact, I have no real problem with first-timers posting off-topic
questions. This isn't a good place to get detailed information about,
say, Win32 or POSIX, but we do tend to be pretty good at advising
people where find the actual experts on what they're asking about.

The idea that redirecting a poster to a more appropriate newsgroup is
somehow rude is, of course, absurd. I'm sure there are examples of
people doing it in a rude manner, but in my experience they're the
exception.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Nov 13 '08 #28

P: n/a
On 13 Nov 2008 at 20:55, Chris McDonald wrote:
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired
discussion of greatest interest to those same regulars.
True - but of course, their particular view on "desirable discussions"
carries no more weight than the next man's. This is not a moderated
group, and there is no charter - each person must decide for themselves
what to post. There is no absolute topicality, no matter how often and
how loudly and how aggressively Heathfield & friends say there is.
It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic
C would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.
Exactly. Very few people care about the minutiae of ISO C, whereas lots
and lots of people want to learn C. The "regs" would never support a
name change, because they know that c.l.iso-c would become a ghetto,
while clc would be an active forum for exchange of expertise.

They're perfectly happy with the status quo, where they can fuel their
egos by trying to bully newbies into accepting *their* definition of
"topicality".

Nov 13 '08 #29

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
K&R C is on topic here too.

--
pete
Nov 13 '08 #30

P: n/a
Chris McDonald said:

<snip>
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
I can't be very staunch, then, because I disagree that such a change would
have the effect you desire.
It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.
That would be very unfortunate, because ISO C ***IS*** basic C. It's the
core language, the bit you learn first. Everything else is bolt-on
libraries and bizarre compiler extensions.

--
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
Nov 13 '08 #31

P: n/a
pete <pf*****@mindspring.comwrites:
>Chris McDonald wrote:
>Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
>K&R C is on topic here too.
Yes and, as would be confirmed by many regular readers and posters here,
each of whom's viewpoint carries equal validity, so could be the typical
approaches to supporting coloured text, networking, and multithreading
from within the C language. Hence the (never-ending) discussion.

--
Chris.
Nov 13 '08 #32

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@TROUSERSspamcop.netwrites:
>The groupname field was not designed to be an all encompassing
definition of its purpose.

Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
I think you've already found that to be untrue. :-)

More to the point, ISO-C /is/ C. Code to do networking or read DMA
memory or use Microsoft's or Borland's or Gnu's or Posix or Sparc
extensions aren't formally part of the language. It'd be more sensible
to have comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c.microsoft, comp.lang.c.gnu ... but then
those groups already exist.
>
It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.
But basic C /is/ ISO C. Anyone learning to programme in C should be
learning the basics first, and the basics are codified in the Standard.
GUIs and networking and threads aren't basic C programming.

--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Nov 13 '08 #33

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
....
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
I'm afraid you're wrong about that. The proposed name incorrectly
suggests that ISO C is some weird variant of C that's probably of
negligible interest to general C programmers. ISO C is C, and should in
fact be the primary concern of any C programmer who's not made a
deliberate well-thought-out decision that his code should be written in
a way that restricts its portability to a limited set of platforms.
It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.
First-time posters wanting help with basic C questions should be posting
to the group you want to call comp.lang.iso-c. As RH has already said
"ISO C is basic C". Actual questions about C are precisely what that
group should be restricted to. Take those away, and it becomes pointless.

Questions about the application domain, rather than the C code that that
the application is written in, should be directed at domain experts, not
C experts.

Questions about a particular implementation of C should be directed to
forums specific to that implementation, and similarly for questions
about C-like non-implementations of C, such as GNU-C.

OS-specific questions should go to OS-specific forums.

Questions about the C standard itself, rather than about the language
defined by that standard, should go to comp.std.c

However, questions that are about basic C itself most certainly should
go here (or to the place you want to call comp.lang.iso-c, should it be
created).
Nov 14 '08 #34

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
....
>The idea that redirecting a poster to a more appropriate newsgroup is
somehow rude is, of course, absurd. I'm sure there are examples of
people doing it in a rude manner, but in my experience they're the
exception.
You are hallucinating again.

Nov 14 '08 #35

P: n/a
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:
>First-time posters wanting help with basic C questions should be posting
to the group you want to call comp.lang.iso-c......
Actually, if you took the courtesy to read what I wrote, you'd appreciate
that I didn't make any statements about what I want.

But I will (providing you with some potential fodder) - I think that a
(new) group named comp.programming.c would accurately suggest where
questions about programming in C, and its dialects, and compiler-specific
extensions, and cross-platform APIs, could be posted.

--
Chris.
Nov 14 '08 #36

P: n/a
Chris McDonald <ch***@csse.uwa.edu.auwrites:
Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
I deny that. C is C. C is ISO C. ISO C is C. End of.

If you think there's a need for alternatives that aren't adequately
supported elsewhere in the tree of groups, then I'd suggest something
like comp.lang.c.${VARIANT} for the bastardised versions.

Phil
--
I tried the Vista speech recognition by running the tutorial. I was
amazed, it was awesome, recognised every word I said. Then I said the
wrong word ... and it typed the right one. It was actually just
detecting a sound and printing the expected word! -- pbhj on /.
Nov 14 '08 #37

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:
>First-time posters wanting help with basic C questions should be posting
to the group you want to call comp.lang.iso-c......

Actually, if you took the courtesy to read what I wrote, you'd appreciate
that I didn't make any statements about what I want.

But I will (providing you with some potential fodder) - I think that a
(new) group named comp.programming.c would accurately suggest where
questions about programming in C, and its dialects, and compiler-specific
extensions, and cross-platform APIs, could be posted.
The suggestion has merit. There's a procedure somewhere
to ballot for a new newsgroup: I'm not familiar with how it
works, but if you can formulate a proposal along these lines
I'd probably vote for it.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Nov 14 '08 #38

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:
>First-time posters wanting help with basic C questions should be posting
to the group you want to call comp.lang.iso-c......

Actually, if you took the courtesy to read what I wrote, you'd appreciate
that I didn't make any statements about what I want.
You're correct. You expressed a strong opinion that this name was better
than the existing one, at least for certain purposes, an opinion you
hold so strongly that you suggested that no one could deny the validity
of that opinion. However, I can see now that I went overboard in
assuming that you wanted that name to be used - you didn't actually say so.
But I will (providing you with some potential fodder) - I think that a
(new) group named comp.programming.c would accurately suggest where
questions about programming in C, and its dialects, and compiler-specific
extensions, and cross-platform APIs, could be posted.
That sounds like a reasonable choice. The distinction between
"comp.lang.c" and "comp.programming.c" isn't as clear as I'd like from
the group names, but no group name of reasonable length could possibly
fully clarify that distinction.
Nov 14 '08 #39

P: n/a
On Nov 12, 11:00*am, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <to*@lavabit.comwrote:
I'm currently writing a program and I've got in mind to keep it as
portable as possible. In particular I want it to run on Linux and
Windows, but I'm also keeping an open mind to any machine that has a
screen and is capable of Ethernet networking. The program requires
three things that aren't available in the C Standard:
* * 1) Coloured text (for a console application)
* * 2) Raw socket networking
* * 3) Multithreading

For number 1, I've already written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses ANSI escape sequences for Linux, and Win32 API
functions for Windows).

For number 2, I've again written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses Berkeley Sockets for Linux, and winpcap for Windows
-- I would have used Winsock for Windows but Winsock no longer
supports raw sockets).

For number 3, well I'm just about to delve into it now. I see that
somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to Win32, so that
looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go down that road
though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea than to use
pthreads?
Perhaps too big for your purposes, but it's very portable:

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/

I'm not sure if it provides console text coloring. There's a newsgroup
for it:

mozilla.dev.tech.nspr

Sebastian

Nov 14 '08 #40

P: n/a
On Nov 13, 8:55*pm, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.auwrote:
Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.netwrites:
Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.
<snip>
All true, but no-one proposed reviewing and changing all group names.
My comment was simply that the original suggestion was not redundant.

Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c *would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
I would, I'm not sure if I qualify if I'm "staunch" or not.

clc also discusses K&R. What would your definition of
"The C Programming Language" if you ddin't use a standard?
It's also less likely that first-time posters wanting help with basic C
would choose comp.lang.iso-c over c.l.c.

--
Nick Keighley
Nov 14 '08 #41

P: n/a
Chris McDonald wrote:
pete <pf*****@mindspring.comwrites:
>Chris McDonald wrote:
>>Not even the most staunch of c.l.c. regulars could deny that the name
comp.lang.iso-c would be a name better reflecting the desired discussion
of greatest interest to those same regulars.
>K&R C is on topic here too.

Yes and, as would be confirmed by many regular readers and posters here,
each of whom's viewpoint carries equal validity, so could be the typical
approaches to supporting coloured text, networking, and multithreading
from within the C language. Hence the (never-ending) discussion.
There is no existing newsgroup more appropriate than this one
for the discussion of K&R C.

I don't know about all those other things.

--
pete
Nov 14 '08 #42

P: n/a
James Kuyper wrote:
Chris McDonald wrote:
.... snip ...
>
>But I will (providing you with some potential fodder) - I think
that a (new) group named comp.programming.c would accurately
suggest where questions about programming in C, and its dialects,
and compiler-specific extensions, and cross-platform APIs, could
be posted.

That sounds like a reasonable choice. The distinction between
"comp.lang.c" and "comp.programming.c" isn't as clear as I'd like
from the group names, but no group name of reasonable length could
possibly fully clarify that distinction.
I disagree. comp.programming already exists, does not worry too
much about topicality (and is infested by Nilges/spinoza).
Strictly speaking it deals with algorithms, not languages. A
subgroup dealing with C will only confuse users.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Nov 14 '08 #43

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.