Re: Pedants

jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
Because "here" there weren't any bug reports.

1) All "bugs" posted here were ironic stuff to show how bad
my compiler is. For instance somebody posted a "bug report"
when he defined a dprintf function. It is not intrinsically
bad, and the correction is easy, but the general tone is:
"I am a new user and I can't understand"

Perhaps the intent was "ironic", or whatever. Since I can't read the
poster's mind, I can't be sure. But regardless of the poster's
intent, it was (if I recall correctly) a genuine bug.

In my opinion, your best response would have been to ignore the tone,
acknowledge the error, and indicate your intent to fix it.

But since (a) lcc-win32 has had a tendency to declare non-standard
identifiers in standard headers, and (b) you have a history of
reacting badly when this is pointed out, a troll who wants to start a
flame war can easily do so. And you take the bait.

Then, Heathfield and co will jump in as if they weren't
involved:

What do you mean by "as if" they weren't involved? If you're
insinuating that the poster was a sock puppet, please provide some
evidence to back up your accusation.

"Of course, that is a horrible compiler", etc.

Whom are you quoting?

2) No problems whatsoever with *real* problems, bad code
generation, etc. The only "problems" are cosmetic.

PEDANTS like those bugs, they make an implicit assertion
about "book knowledge" as cited in dictionary.com when
consulting the definition of "pedant".

I don't know what you're talking about here. Can you provide an
example?

3) Use of undocumented flags (like -ansic89) that they gather
by looking into the executable of linux or whatever.

Yes, somebody complained, for whatever reason, about the behavior of
lcc-win32 with "-ansic89". Most of us had no way of knowing that that
was an undocumented flag. If you had said so at the beginning of that
discussion, there would have been nothing to discuss.

Then,
Heathfield springs in and writes:
"That compiler doesn't conform to *any* standard"

Is he mistaken? If so, to what standard does it conform? If not,
what's the problem?

Since most gcc headers will not compile with other
compilers I could post HUNDREDS of those bugs here,
just to show that gcc is "bad". Obviously I will not
do that, I am not a pedant.

Nobody else would do that either, because it would be absurd. There's
no reason to assume that gcc-specific headers will compile with any
other compiler.

If some gcc-specific header didn't compile with gcc, or if some
lcc-specific header didn't compile with lcc, that would be a bug. In
either case, comp.lang.c might be an appropriate place to ask whether
it's a bug or not.

This group is lacking most of a real discussion about issues
in software development. Any such discussions will be killed by this
people with their "off topic" stuff. Here, only THEY can discuss
anything that goes beyond

int main (void);

or printf directives, or students homework.

Please don't exaggerate; it doens't help your case. ISO C is a big
topic, going well beyond "int main(void)" and printf directives.

I have tried to initiate such discussions, to show code for a
general container library for instance.

There wasn't a SINGLE comment about my code.

In that code I showed a software for developing general containers
with the example of a resizable array.

Nothing.

I'm afraid I don't remember that posting. Can you provide a URL or
Message-ID?

NONE of the people that now tell (in this same group)

"Jacob never posts source code"

Whom are you quoting?

This is a denigration campaign. And you have seen that, and apparently
you did not notice.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@xxxxxxx <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"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: automated test? (was Re: Linux 2.6.17.7)
    ... a bug report may not convey the hint "look at this NOW, ... what I was intending with my origional question was a series of simple 'does it compile' tests that try all the config options that are affected by the patchset in question. ... obviously such a test can't be done on the huge -rc patches, but for -stable patches ... Given a patch that modifies file X is it possible to know what config options could be affected? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Mystery Access VB bug
    ... one of the things that triggers this corruption is editing the module ... Your code runs, and hits a bug. ... the text version of the code visible in your editing window, the Compile ... > would get if I had a missing reference. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Lcc-win32 infos diffusion
    ... ALL and next too (bug ONLY on Win9x/Me, NOT other Windows ... When Lcc compile a source code it insert some bytes after ...
    (Bugtraq)
  • Real pain with SegFoult
    ... For three days I'am looking for a bug, but I'm not able to find it. ... always works fine at home but on Solaris it gives me Seqmentation Foults ... It not only doesn't compile on my Solaris but also make some problems on ... but only on my home linux. ...
    (comp.lang.c)