Re: help me learn C

Chris Hills wrote:
In article <Qxv6g.124023$P01.80373@pd7tw3no>, Andrew Poelstra
<apoelstra@xxxxxxx> writes
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <ajai521bealgqo7cq099a54qfv6q34vq9v@xxxxxxx>, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:48:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Hills
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No WE would not. You do.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of personal pronouns. We, that
is to say virtually all the regulars, all the main contributors and so
forth here, take a viewpoint that topic preservation is important for
our sanity and in order to keep some sort of focus.

You, that is to say the newcomers, trolls and some others, take a
different stance,
Interesting....
I have been on here over 14 years but a member of the ISO C panel for
only about 8 years. I am also one of the principal authors of MISRA-C So
I am not sure with category I fit into.

However many possible new members have been driven way by the same few
trolls insisting on racial purity.

If you want to discuss ISO C there is Comp.std.c

No, if you want to discuss the standard itself that is where you go.

Or standard C... it is where those of use on the ISO C panel discuss ISO
C publicly

Standard C is discussed here, amid the discussions on what exactly we discuss. For someone so insistent that real-world experience is everything, looking at a few threads will tell you that.

If you really want to discuss something in depth that is specific to an
OS or a compiler etc there are specific groups for that.

SO what is comp.lang.c for then? Not the language as used or the
standard.

Uh... unless you've managed to write C code without ever using standard functions, this is the place for "the language as used".

You clearly know very little about C. there is not a C used in
practical terms that does not use some extensions. There is very little
pure C written.

Really? I've seen huge games written where there are a few files of non-standard C encapsulating library functions and other such non-C, and dozens of files of completely legal C.

Many seem to thing it should be widened from discussing purely the C
that is only used in the standard, but virtually no where else, to
encompass the C that is actually used in compilers.

I've written countless programs without using OS-specific functions or extensions.

Good for you then you are in a very small minority. What targets do you
write for? what sort off applications?

Text-based applications, for friends and family, or for myself when I have a certain problem that can't be decently solved in awk. When I want graphics, I rewrite display.c, which is in all of my newer applications, so that it itself is nonstandard, leaving the several other files intact.

Many questions asked here would be better served on an OS or what ever
specific NG but many questions on C (as actually implemented on
compilers) would be better answered here.

That way people would understand the differences between their compiler
and pure ISO C.. which ISO C? 90, 95/96 99? Or those who still refer to
89 and K&R?

They are all standard C, in that they are C and they are standard.

Then you are WRONG in that assertion.

I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you meant by wrong; which assertation are you talking about?

None of them contain the functions "getch()" and "clrscrn()", which are two of the most common functions people get mad about here.

That is a red herring.

I could list other common non-standard abuses that not only could be encapsulated and isolated, but could be eliminated entirely.

If you say ISO C ie ISO 9899:1999 and nothing else fair enough but you
want it both ways you want o discuss K&R1,2 ANSI C 89, ISO 90, 95, 96,
99 but not any of the standards as implemented.

Many questions could be answered here whilst pointing out that the
question and solution are not ISO standard.

And many questions /are/ answered this way. They just also get redirects to more topical areas.
As for this NG dying... it is. There are many other C mail lists and
NG's springing up. This one is no longer the only or authoritative
voice.

I'm 14 and started posting here about two months ago, and I agree with the purists on most every count. Not sure how that qualifies as dying...

You do not know enough to comment.
That's an unfair generalization. I've been programming for eight years, in C for six. I know enough to post to this newsgroup.

> Some of use were on line here before
you were born.

I'm aware of that; I know my history. ;-)

the Internet has expand by many orders of magnitude during your life
time. The traffic here has not. However there are many other forum
similar to c.l.c now around also with as much or more traffic as here.

As c.l.c is not growing in proportion to the growth in the Internet it
is therefore getting smaller.

The intellect of the average internet user has gone down dramatically as its population has gone up; the number of smart people online isn't going to change much. You don't want to know what will happen if c.l.c had to handle the average joe posting on here.

Comp.lang.c is about C not "standard" C unless you can find a charter
that says otherwise.
The "charter" argument has been previously debunked.

debunked? you miss understand. There is no charter to support your claim
for the narrow definition you have. You can not say what is or is not
correct for this NG other than it is a discussion area for the use of
the C language rather than the C standard.

We don't need a charter because c.l.c has been here for so long, as you pointed out when attacking my age, and its purpose is established.

The C language is defined by the C standard.

--
"Every prime number in a series as a joke
Made all the patterns clear when I took that final toke"
- - Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Forth Frustrations
    ... How would they even know what they are without being language lawyers? ... Then if you choose a standard system you can write code for it, ... interpreter, ... They set up four states -- HOST INTERPRETER COMPILER ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
    ... > the standard language. ... Or did they just implemented some 80% of the new features? ... there was a fully compiant C compiler available. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
    ... > the standard language. ... Or did they just implemented some 80% of the new features? ... there was a fully compiant C compiler available. ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)
    ... > that someone will try compile their stuff on an old compiler. ... > because the ANSI standard obsoleted them, and everyone picked up the ANSI ... fixed by using another language. ... >>are multiplying two expressions of the widest type supported by your ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: subroutine stack and C machine model
    ... They could have standardized that the language would be ... getting the facts wrong anyway. ... And the answer, for the Schildt books, is that they consistently produced ... to C start with the standard. ...
    (comp.lang.c)