Re: A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry

nick_keighley_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
not if they were trying to help people rather than mislead them...

I disagree. Since there's no charter, there's no authority for
what's on-topic on comp.lang.c. The reasonable thing to do is
look at the name of the newsgroup and form a fair opinion
on topicality that way. comp.lang.c is about the C programming
language. The C programming language existed before ISO C,
and the C programming language continues to consume ISO C rather
than be consumed by it. Millions of open-source software
developers understand the C programming language to exist
outside of ISO C, as do a whole lot of reputable authors
and publishers. Even the ISO C standard *itself* defines
conforming C, which is a nod to the fact that what constitutes
the C programming language isn't constrained by the ISO
C standard.

Neither side has the right to impose its topicality opinion on
the other side. That said, if I see a rational, logical argument
for why comp.lang.c -- the C programming language -- should
be restricted to ISO C, I'll happily adopt the opinion
myself. But my view at the moment is that it's a great
disservice to C programmers all around the world to restrict
comp.lang.c to ISO C, especially since the vast majority
of open-source C code isn't written in ISO C. Not even
the primary unix2dos program is written in ISO C.

The mature thing to do is "live and let live". If someone
wants to ignore a thread or redirect the poster to another
newsgroup, so be it. If someone wants to address the
OP's question, so be it. No reason either side has to attack
the other when the other does its thing.

Yours,
Han from China

--
"Only entropy comes easy." -- Anton Chekhov

.

Relevant Pages