Re: The annotated annotated annotated C standard

spinoza1111 said:

On Jan 17, 11:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 said:

<snip>

You don't see that you type above "to miss the wrong target every
time" which was YOUR error.

No, it wasn't an error at all. I meant exactly what I wrote, and wrote
exactly what I meant. I won't attempt to explain it to you, though,
since it would be tedious in the extreme to do so. I have no doubt that
typical comp.programming subscribers were bright enough to work out
exactly what I meant. You, of course, are not a typical comp.programming
subscriber.

You're lying. You [expletive deleted] up in writing the statement and
you won't admit it.

I am not surprised by your response, but no, I'm not lying. Those who know
me rather better than you do will not be in any doubt about this.


<snip>

Don't you dare, don't you dare, tell me or Schildt or anyone else how
to use words, Mr. Out of Print.

What you say is up to you. What I say is up to me. Nobody forces you to
read my articles. If you don't want to read my corrections, don't read
them. If you don't want me to *post* corrections, don't post mistakes.

<nonsense snipped>

I've forgotten more about C than you'll ever learn.

The last time you claimed this, a few years back, I wrote a humorous
reply which went straight over your head. I won't bother to repeat it
here, because you'd only misunderstand again.

It wasn't funny.

Actually, it was. You were, I think, the only responder who demonstrated a
lack of comprehension.

I've probably written more code than you in C alone,

If that is true, you have written vast amounts of C - so it might have been
a good idea to invest some time in learning how to write it properly. Oh
well, too late now, since you've abandoned C. Better luck with C#, eh?

primarily between 1987 and 1992, and as a professional with integrity
I abandoned it because it cannot produce good software much beyond
printf("[expletive deleted] this [expletive deleted]\n");

Actually, it can, in the hands of a competent practitioner.

Apologize to the people you have harmed and clear out, or zip up.

You don't get to choose who posts in comp.programming any more than I
do, and I have no intention whatsoever of giving up helping people here
just because you can't stand the thought of someone who is prepared to
stand up to your seemingly limitless stream of idiotic nonsense.

I'm not asking you to give up helping people at your low level of
ability.

You seem to be implying that you have a higher level of ability than me.
Well, why not prove it, by using your Usenet time to help people instead
of producing all these thousands of words of mindless drivel?

If you won't clear out in shame and humiliation, then
restrict your postings to areas of your professional competence,

Before posting advice here, I decide whether I know the answer to the
question - if not, I either don't reply at all or, if I think I can
nevertheless give a helpful hint, I will point out that it may not be the
full solution or even the correct solution. I also check the current
newsfeed in case someone has already posted a good answer, to avoid
redundant redundancy.

Do NOT post, if you seek
to avoid embarassing yourself, on the boundary of C as relates to
other languages.

You get to decide what you get to say, and I get to decide what I get to
say. That's how Usenet works. If you don't like it, well, it's still how
Usenet works.

Do NOT make claims that C can "do anything" which are
also true for binary machine language,

There are some uncomputable problems. C can't compute those. Neither can
anything else.

and which ignore the
Intuitionist need for constructibility in a matter of applied
mathematics. Do NOT make false claims that the behavior of real
compilers is unknowable because the standard says it is undefined. Do
NOT tell people that they need only to override the value of a #define

Learn to read. I made no such claim.

Educate yourself on object-orientation and encapsulation and stop
implying or claiming that this already exists in C.

Encapsulation can certainly be done in C, and it's actually quite easy. So
is data-hiding. My own view on object orientation in C, though (and this
is particularly with regard to inheritance and polymorphism), is that it's
rather like the proverbial dog walking on two legs: one is not so much
disappointed to see it done badly as to marvel at seeing it done at all!

Stop instigating group thread vandalism by being the person who firsts
posts a pompous attack and then allows thugs to parrot your nonsense.

If you don't want me to correct errors in your articles, don't post errors
in your articles. I have neither the desire nor the authority to allow nor
disallow anyone posting anything here. I don't agree that the others who
have contributed to these threads are thugs, I don't agree that they're
parroting me, and I don't agree that my replies are nonsense.

And stop these campaigns against people like Schildt who've
accomplished far more than you.

I don't campaign against people. If I campaign against anything, it's
incorrectness.

Stop calling different ways of interpretation "errors"

There are right ways to interpret technical stuff, and then there are wrong
ways. The wrong ways are erroneous. Computer programming is an exact and
exacting discipline, not an exercise in postmodernism.

Just LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE.

Like you've left Clive Feather alone? Were I to use your own flawed
arguments, I'd think you were trying to discredit him for your own
nefarious purposes.

--
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
.

Relevant Pages