Pedants

[Chris Thomasson]

Re: Pedants


"jacob navia" <jacob@nospam.c omwrote in message
news:g3ik4r$q0s $1@aioe.org...

Dear pedantic user
>
What is a pedant?

[...]

I like to make sure things work correctly and honestly within a given set of
rules.

[santosh]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia wrote:

<snip>
[regarding win-lcc]

The "pedantic" flag is no longer supported, and if you invoke

You should have removed mention of the flag in win-lcc's usage message
as soon as you stopped support for the flag.

Version 3.8 of win-lcc compiled on March 2008 accepts the pedantic flag
without any mention that it is not supported.

lcc -pedantic pedantic.c
>
you get:
>
"Pedants are no longer supported!"

So I updated my win-lcc installation to the latest binaries and sure
enough, I get this silly message of yours. IMHO, you should remove this
message and replace it with the default one ("Warning N Ignoring
unknown option '-pedantic') to maintain professionalism .

and the program exits!

Which it shouldn't do, at least in this case. IMHO it should print a
message that it is ignoring the said option and continue translation.

:-)

IMHO, you are affecting the professional image of your product by such
reactionary tactics.

Obviously the fact that lcc-win is much faster than gcc
or other compilers doesn't count.

With machines these days, compiler speed is not as important as it's
other abilities. Compiler correctness is especially critical, since it
has the potential to make or break other programs.

<snip>

[Antoninus Twink]

Re: Pedants

On 21 Jun 2008 at 22:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

[extremely incisive analysis of clc]

If you think comp.lang.c is a total loss, why post here?

You don't get it, do you Heathfield? You aren't the absolute monarch of
clc anywhere except in your own mind. Those of us who won't bow the knee
to your topicality tyrrany aren't just going to give up on clc, because
it has the potential to be such a useful resource for real-world C
programmers.

You and your cronies and lackies can shout and scream, you can try to
bore us to death with "off topic, not portable, don't top post, blah
blah blah" day after day, you can bully and harangue us... but clc IS
NOT your personal fiefdom, and you can't stop us discussing C here.
We're not going to roll over and die.

As it happens, I think there are signs that the tide is slowly turning.
As the months pass, there are more and more people who dare to stick
their heads above the parapet and provide "off topic" answers to
questions. The atmosphere is slowly improving for newbies (at least now
most newbies' posts get at least one friendly answer, even if they also
get half a dozen flames)... The Roman Empire fell, and Heathfield's
empire won't last forever either.

[Antoninus Twink]

Re: Pedants

On 21 Jun 2008 at 14:04, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Some simple rules when dealing with Jacob:
>
1. Don't attack Jacob, he takes it as personal offense

[snip pages of nonsense like this]

On the contrary, Jacob responds politely to polite questions. Witness
his patience in the recent "Eddie" thread (another Heathfield
sock-puppet?).

You can hardly blame him for being a bit sensitive when Heathfield is
conducting a sustained campaign of character assassination against him
that any decent person would be ashamed to have any part of (I wonder if
he'd be so obnoxious IRL - they often say that people can be monsters
across the internet because they're talking to words not people). And
not just Heathfield, but a whole gang of them who egg each other on into
posting more and more unpleasant things about Jacob - Mackintyre, "Old
Wolf", "Mr Teapot", more names than I can remember...

[Antoninus Twink]

Re: Pedants

On 21 Jun 2008 at 23:12, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Not in comp.lang.c, no, where we discuss the language, not implementations
thereof. If you want to race compilers, please do it in a newsgroup where
it's topical.

Is your memory so short that you don't remember this thread, only six
weeks ago:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/82aa53ec428697ee#

In it you yourself "race" not even two C compilers, but a C compiler vs.
a C++ compiler vs. a Java compiler.

But of course there's no hypocrisy here. Of course it's not one rule for
you and another for Jacob. Of course not.

[Jens Thoms Toerring]

Re: Pedants

Antoninus Twink <nospam@nospam. invalidwrote:

On 21 Jun 2008 at 22:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

[extremely incisive analysis of clc]

If you think comp.lang.c is a total loss, why post here?

You don't get it, do you Heathfield? You aren't the absolute monarch of
clc anywhere except in your own mind. Those of us who won't bow the knee
to your topicality tyrrany aren't just going to give up on clc, because
it has the potential to be such a useful resource for real-world C
programmers.

You and your cronies and lackies can shout and scream, you can try to
bore us to death with "off topic, not portable, don't top post, blah
blah blah" day after day, you can bully and harangue us... but clc IS
NOT your personal fiefdom, and you can't stop us discussing C here.
We're not going to roll over and die.

As it happens, I think there are signs that the tide is slowly turning.
As the months pass, there are more and more people who dare to stick
their heads above the parapet and provide "off topic" answers to
questions. The atmosphere is slowly improving for newbies (at least now
most newbies' posts get at least one friendly answer, even if they also
get half a dozen flames)... The Roman Empire fell, and Heathfield's
empire won't last forever either.

You seem to be a hopeless case. This group is about C, not every-
thing that was ever written in some dialect resembling C. And
it's not for system specific extensions, there are other groups
that are dedicated to those topics for a reason. Redirecting
people to those groups isn't unfriendly but the only reasonable
thing to do. Your kind of "friendline ss" is lik giving a child
the cleaner fluid to drink just because it asked for and might
throws a tantrum instead of telling it not to drink it and ex-
plaining why.

I for one came originally to comp.lang.c after having gotten
bitten badly by not being able to distinguish what's C and
what are system specific extensions. I learned here what the
difference is and how to spot such probems since people took
the time to explain it clearly and in detail (if necessary
even being a bit pedantic - but non-pedantic programmers tend
to be bad programmers and we already have too many of those).

With your "we discuss everything here that ever was written
in anything that somehow resembles C" approach you try to
kill exactly what makes clc worth reading. If you would get
away with it it would become another completely useless place
where it's impossible to get relevant informations and where
the people that actually know their stuff leave in disgust.
There are already much too many newsgroups that suffered this
fate since nobody tried to maintain topicality.

But whom I am telling this. Someone who seems to write at least
20 to 30 poests a day (with a record at over 50 a day over a
months period) for sure wont have time for thinking. Consider
yourself finally plonked together with the other two assholes.
Three quartes of what you write is whining and of the rest a
big part is wrong or misleading. Perhaps you should start to
learn a bit more about C before you try to prescribe what is
to be discussed here.

--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\______________ ____________ http://toerring.de

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Pedants

In article <slrng5sflr.2jj .nospam@nospam. invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <nospam@nospam. invalidwrote:

>On 21 Jun 2008 at 23:12, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Not in comp.lang.c, no, where we discuss the language, not implementations
>thereof. If you want to race compilers, please do it in a newsgroup where
>it's topical.

>
>Is your memory so short that you don't remember this thread, only six
>weeks ago:
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a53ec428697ee#
>
>In it you yourself "race" not even two C compilers, but a C compiler vs.
>a C++ compiler vs. a Java compiler.
>
>But of course there's no hypocrisy here. Of course it's not one rule for
>you and another for Jacob. Of course not.
>

My personal view is that it is not really hypocrisy when there is no
actual assumption of equality. The CLC regs have, collectively stated
(explicitly) that they are not bound by the same topicality rules that
they enforce on others (non-regs). You can do the Google on this; it
will not be hard to find explicit statements to this effect.

Think of this as being like the way cops drive - in non-emergency
situations. We all know they drive like lunatics - because they can -
and no one is going to even think of it as "hypocritic al" when they
issue tickets to people for doing the same things they routinely do.
It goes with the job, as they say.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: Pedants

jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) writes:

Antoninus Twink <nospam@nospam. invalidwrote:

[the usual]

You seem to be a hopeless case.

[snip]

Of *course* he's a hopeless case. AT is a troll, nothing more,
nothing less. Responding to him only encourages him to continue
trolling.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@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"

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: Pedants

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 21 Jun 2008 at 14:04, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Some simple rules when dealing with Jacob:
>>
>1. Don't attack Jacob, he takes it as personal offense

[snip pages of nonsense like this]
>
On the contrary, Jacob responds politely to polite questions. Witness
his patience in the recent "Eddie" thread (another Heathfield
sock-puppet?).

Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!

RH isn't using win-lcc (he says, and I have no reason to not believe that),
so none of the bug reports came from him.

You can hardly blame him for being a bit sensitive when Heathfield is
conducting a sustained campaign of character assassination against him
that any decent person would be ashamed to have any part of (I wonder
if he'd be so obnoxious IRL - they often say that people can be
monsters across the internet because they're talking to words not
people). And not just Heathfield, but a whole gang of them who egg
each other on into posting more and more unpleasant things about
Jacob - Mackintyre, "Old Wolf", "Mr Teapot", more names than I can
remember...

Bye, Jojo

[jacob navia]

Re: Pedants

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!
>
RH isn't using win-lcc (he says, and I have no reason to not believe that),
so none of the bug reports came from him.
>

Those aren't bug reports. The regulars insisted in their stupid
pedantic stuff and I added a flag to please them.


Instead of filing a bug report, they laugh at me with their
"new to c" posts:

What happens? Am I doing something wrong?

Then Heathfield starts saying that my compiler is useless, etc.

What have you done for the community Mr Schmitz?

Is there any program from you *I* can laugh at?

No. Not even that. Nothing. Like your friend Heathfield.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia said:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!
>>
>RH isn't using win-lcc (he says, and I have no reason to not believe
>that), so none of the bug reports came from him.

Correct. None of them did.

Those aren't bug reports. The regulars insisted in their stupid
pedantic stuff and I added a flag to please them.

You would do better to spend the time removing bugs from your compiler.

Instead of filing a bug report, they laugh at me with their
"new to c" posts:

If you don't like people to laugh at you, stop behaving in such a laughable
way. Grow up a little. Bugs are inevitable. It's how we respond to them
that matters.

What happens? Am I doing something wrong?

Yes. You are too quick to react with inappropriate hostility when people
disagree with you.

Then Heathfield starts saying that my compiler is useless, etc.

Only to people who need a C compiler. For people who need lcc-win32,
lcc-win32 is exactly what they need, and no doubt there are such people.

If you disagree with my suggestion that lcc-win32 is not a C compiler, to
what C standard do you claim conformance? K&R C? C90? C99?

What have you done for the community Mr Schmitz?

He helps people out here with answers as good as he can give, and when he
gets it wrong and is corrected, he learns from that, so that his future
answers will be better still.

Is there any program from you *I* can laugh at?

It's not your *program* that people laugh at.

No. Not even that. Nothing. Like your friend Heathfield.

I've never even met the guy.

--
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

[santosh]

Re: Pedants

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

<snip>

>Then Heathfield starts saying that my compiler is useless, etc.

>
Only to people who need a C compiler. For people who need lcc-win32,
lcc-win32 is exactly what they need, and no doubt there are such
people.
>
If you disagree with my suggestion that lcc-win32 is not a C compiler,
to what C standard do you claim conformance? K&R C? C90? C99?

So by your own logic Turbo C version 2.1 (distributed for free by
Borland in recent years and seemingly quite popular with beginners) is
not a C compiler?
:-)

<snip>

[santosh]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Show polite reples of Jacob to bug reports, start with just one!
>>
>RH isn't using win-lcc (he says, and I have no reason to not believe
>that), so none of the bug reports came from him.
>>

>
Those aren't bug reports. The regulars insisted in their stupid
pedantic stuff and I added a flag to please them.

Oh, you added "pedantic" please the "regulars" of clc? Strange. When was
this? And what does "pedantic" do that "ansic" will not do? Does it
behave (or I guess, used to behave) similarly to gcc's pedantic flag?

Instead of filing a bug report, they laugh at me with their
"new to c" posts:

There is a possibility that these anonymous posters of win-lcc problems
do have a malicious motive. If they do, you however are feeding right
from their hand by getting so worked up about their posts. Regardless
of their intent you should only address the content of their posts. If
there is a genuine bug then the best response, IMHO, is to say you will
look into it at the earliest.

What happens? Am I doing something wrong?

Yes, you are IMHO, tarnishing your own reputation. Remember
these "anonymous" posters can say anything precisely because of their
anonymity, but you would be well advised to overlook their possible
motive and only address the technical content of their posts.

<snip>

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Pedants

santosh said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:

>
<snip>
>

>>Then Heathfield starts saying that my compiler is useless, etc.

>>
>Only to people who need a C compiler. For people who need lcc-win32,
>lcc-win32 is exactly what they need, and no doubt there are such
>people.
>>
>If you disagree with my suggestion that lcc-win32 is not a C compiler,
>to what C standard do you claim conformance? K&R C? C90? C99?

>
So by your own logic Turbo C version 2.1 (distributed for free by
Borland in recent years and seemingly quite popular with beginners) is
not a C compiler?
:-)

Right. Turbo C 2.01, strictly speaking, is not a C compiler, because it
doesn't conform to C90. Mind you, it was released in the late 1980s. Since
then, Borland have released later versions which have fewer (no?)
conformance issues. I'm not judging lcc-win32 on the basis of how it stood
20 years ago (if it even existed then), but on the basis of how it stands
(or at least appears to stand, to go by comments made in this group) now,
and on the attitude of its principal (or perhaps only) maintainer towards
bug reports. An implementor who embraces, and is striving towards,
conformance is to be preferred over one who appears to consider
conformance to be an unnecessary evil.

--
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

[santosh]

Re: Pedants

santosh wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:

>
<snip>
>

>>Then Heathfield starts saying that my compiler is useless, etc.

>>
>Only to people who need a C compiler. For people who need lcc-win32,
>lcc-win32 is exactly what they need, and no doubt there are such
>people.
>>
>If you disagree with my suggestion that lcc-win32 is not a C
>compiler, to what C standard do you claim conformance? K&R C? C90?
>C99?

>
So by your own logic Turbo C version 2.1 (distributed for free by
Borland in recent years and seemingly quite popular with beginners) is
not a C compiler?
:-)
>
<snip>

And BTW, correct me if I'm wrong but "K&R C" isn't exactly a standard
right?