Re: "Mastering C Pointers"....
From: Richard Heathfield (dontmail_at_address.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 11/02/03
- Next message: Yann Laviolette: "Re: Getdate and gettime"
- Previous message: Yann Laviolette: "Re: Linux - Getdate question and calling another program"
- In reply to: Roose: "Re: "Mastering C Pointers"...."
- Next in thread: Roose: "Re: "Mastering C Pointers"...."
- Reply: Roose: "Re: "Mastering C Pointers"...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:06:56 +0000 (UTC)
Roose wrote:
>> > Fine I was wrong about the term object. Having worked as a
>> > professional C programmer for many years, I have never heard
>> > anyone refer to an "object" in C in this technical sense.
>> > That tells you how useful this term is.
>>
>> No, it tells me that you haven't even bothered to read the industrial
>> standard that defines the language you are using. That casts some doubt
>> on your use of the word "professional".
>
> Give me a break.
Sure. Take a break, any time you like.
> This is EXACTLY why CLC should not be just about standard C,
That appears to be your opinion, but I see no supporting evidence for your
statement.
> and CLC.moderated should have that sole responsibility.
comp.lang.c.moderated is merely a moderated version of comp.lang.c
In comp.lang.c.moderated, I suspect that many of your articles would simply
not be approved by the moderator. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.
> Regardless of
> whether they're right for coming here, there are TONS of newbies that do.
Agreed.
> And then they get these rigid, exacting answers
Not exacting. Merely exact (modulo typographical errors).
> filled with irrelevant technical details,
You may consider the details irrelevant. I do not, however, pitch my answers
at your level of understanding, but at the questions actually asked by real
people. When the details matter, I give the details. When they don't, I
don't. Now, you may have considered my answer to be overly technical, but
it's a walk in the park compared to the answer I /could/ have given. I
included as much detail as I considered the OP could reasonably be expected
to take in (in one sitting), together with a little encouragement that it
really isn't as hard as he's been led to believe. I continue to maintain
that this was an appropriate response to his question.
> which you would never hear in the real world.
Well, actually, I do discuss such (relevant) technical details in the real
world, as well as on Usenet. And anyway, what makes you think that Usenet
is not part of the real world?
> Then they
> get turned off to C and think it's for wankers.
Speculation. I've found that people often respond well to being told the
underlying truth, rather than the helicopter-joystick method of
programming: "fiddle with the program, and watch what the computer does,
because if you want it to do that again, that is the code you have to
write" is not a very satisfactory way to learn programming.
> A LOT of people actually think this.
Well, I will accept that /you/ think it. Since you have already acknowledged
that you don't exist, however, your view probably doesn't count for much.
> I don't doubt that you are technically correct.
Fine, so what's the problem here?
> Just like I didn't in the interview thread.
Wonderful.
> But your insistence on expounding on all these
> trivialities
If they're such trivialities, why did you get them wrong?
> obscures the real question. Getting a job, or learning how
> to write a real program that does what you want it to do.
That wasn't the real question. The real question was about pointers.
>> > so using the term object in C is confusing.
>>
>> On the contrary, the word means the same in C++ as it does in C.
>> Look it up in ISO/IEC 14882:1998 if you don't believe me.
>
> It may technically, but not in colloquial usage.
Then colloquial usage is wrong, and should be changed.
> If you start blathering
> about objects in C at work, some people will be confused, and others might
> wonder why you're being such a pedant.
Actually, I don't think I've ever confused or offended anyone in a workplace
situation by referring to objects. As for the accusation of pedantry, I
cheerfully confess. Pedants make the best programmers.
> Some people might think you're
> talking about objective C, or C++, or emulating object-orientation in C,
> etc.
Yes, it's possible, and if they did think that, they'd be wrong. People are
wrong a /lot/. Get used to it.
>> > It's not an important word at all in C, but
>> > very important in C++.
>>
>> Wrong. It's a *vital* word for those who wish truly to understand C.
>
> Maybe for understanding the C standard. It is not vital for those who
> simply wish to write successful programs,
If one wishes to write /correct/ C programs, an understanding of the
principles laid out in the Standard is vital. The easiest way to achieve
this understanding is by reading and understanding the C Standard.
> me being an example of that.
We have yet to see any evidence of your ability to write successful
programs.
<snip>
-- Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999. C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
- Next message: Yann Laviolette: "Re: Getdate and gettime"
- Previous message: Yann Laviolette: "Re: Linux - Getdate question and calling another program"
- In reply to: Roose: "Re: "Mastering C Pointers"...."
- Next in thread: Roose: "Re: "Mastering C Pointers"...."
- Reply: Roose: "Re: "Mastering C Pointers"...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
