Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum

On Dec 30, 2:50 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[I'm reluctant to enter into this thread, for reasons that will be obvious
to those who know some of the history; nevertheless, I have one or two
minor and, I hope, objective comments to make.]

Randy Howard said:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:09:43 -0600,spinoza1111wrote

<snip>

Yeah, stay away, since you're a stalker and a cyberbully with nothing
to contribute here.

So you do want to be the bully after all.  As expected.

Randy, you might want to consider whether resurrecting this nonsense is
wise. If you feed it, it will flourish, and I suggest that nobody is
likely to get any benefit from it.

Randy has poor impulse control, Richard. After being asked by a more
or less neutral third party to end the exchange in 2004, I did so, but
at no time did Randy Howard undertake to exhibit a parallel self-
control. As soon as I re-entered comp.programming, he pounced, because
he's a cyber-bully and a cyber-stalker who you enable as Franz von
Papen et al. enabled Hitler.



<snip>

I /think/ it was cbf that came up with 'nilgewater' to describe your
drivel, but can't be bothered to look it up atm.

The first reference I can find is in 1992, from one Mitch Silverman. The
second is indeed a comment from Chuck Falconer.

<snip>

As I explained at the time, since optimizing compilers hoist loop
invariants, that's in general not a good idea from the standpoint of
readable code, since each "work" variable represents a deficiency from
the standpoint of clarity.

And as was /proven/ at the time, none of the compilers in general use
at the time (or now), as verified by multiple people, on multiple
systems, did the magic that you /thought/ they did.  None.  Not only
that, writing code that makes the author look stupid does not add to
"clarity", unless stupidity is the object you wish to clarify.

At the time, I posted the code on my Web site, together with an analysis of
that code. Since then, I've moved to a different ISP. The analysis can now
be found at <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/nilges.html>. I think
it's fair to say that a knowledgeable C programmer can gain a reasonable
appreciation of Mr Nilges's C skills, such as they are, by reading that
page.

Caveat: the page weighs in at around 90KB, and my upload speed is only
around 448Kbps max, so it might take several seconds for people to grab it
if the server is busy doing other stuff at the time.

90KB. Wow. And I thought I was verbose. And, of course, you made sure
to create read-only pages offline to the discussion, and not converse
here. And the server is from Radio Shack, or *** Smith, or Earl's
Court Computer Bazaar. How very convenient. You only have to cite it,
and you do not have to be exposed.

I have a suggestion. If you have a copy of Beautiful Code (O'Reilly
Media, 2007) or you can get your paws on one at Foyle's, why don't you
read the article at the pub or chip shop on your break, and tell me if
you agree or disagree with my thesis, that Rob Pike's 1998 code in the
first essay is not Beautiful?

You have told me, for example, that C is fully aware of international
strings. But when I try to re-use this code in .Net, it can't be
called directly from C Sharp using a String object, because its
interface appears in C Sharp as consisting of sbyte arrays. I fear
that there is no way of converting sbyte arrays to and from two-byte
wide character arrays without an extra loop...although there "might"
be a single Pentium instruction to do so.

As I've pointed out, Richard, you do seem at times to deal in hand-
waving, time-saving folklore in which Rumour enters painted full of
tongues (Shakespeare, Henry IV part 2) to settle disputes, speaking
darkly of pages on servers in the middle of the woods. I suggest that
this generates ill-feeling towards you and exerts a chilling effect on
freedom of speech.

How about it, Dickon? Is the Pike code even like "your" C, that mighty
C which can do everything?


<snip>

--
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

.

Quantcast