«

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <> wrote in message

> Did anyone ever tell you that your English writing looks like line noise?
> Please learn to capitalize correctly, spell correctly, and insert
> whitespace between your words and sentences. Proper punctuation would
> also be a welcome improvement.

I was just quoting all earlier mentioned topics for reference,copied from
posts.

> Speaking of line noise, I agree with goose that C is all easy. *Perl*,
> on the other hand, has a definite gradient from "easy" concepts to
> "advanced." Or maybe that's just me.

"Or maybe that's just me"....this is what exactly I have been poting
about.Because you are experienced you find everything related to C to be
'easy'.
But many learners don't.Just as you find some 'Advanced' concepts in Perl
(this may lead to another thread,'How could you call anything in perl to be
advanced?'),
many..many & many find Advanced concepts in C.This is the reason for
proliferation of courses on
'Advanced C'.

-DSKR

"DSKR" <> wrote in message news:<3efadbf7@shknews01>...
> "goose" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > <snipped>
> > > and Mr.Tom St Denis, I don't know how experienced you are as a C
> > > programmer,but let me reiterate that "ADTs, Linked Lists, Queues,Stacks,
> > > Trees, etc" are considered "Advanced C"
> >
> > by who ? ADTs, linked-lists queues, stacks and trees are *NOT* advanced
> > C concepts. they are very basic C concepts.
>
> Hello goose,
>
> may be not by 'unique' persons like you.do a search...'Advanced C' on
> google.you will then underand by whom...they are considered 'Advanced C'.

the first search I did was for "advanced C" (with the quotes).

result #1 pointed to a webpage which had none of the topics
you mentioned above (ADT's, etc) - http://cplus.about.com/cs/advancedc/

result #2 and #3 pointed to accu book lists, both of which were much to
long for me to read through. the advanced C books no doubt covered
the scenarios you listed.

result #4 is the outline of a course for C. "Description This course
covers advanced features of C in the use of C in more advanced applications."
of the 13 highlights of the syllabus listed, only one of them mentions
data structures like you wanted; surely a weak case for data structures
to be "advanced C" ?

result #5 takes me to an advanced C tutorial (or so it calls itself),
which *never* *even* *mentions* data structures like you wanted.
(it is, in case you were wondering, an x86-based tut on video drivers)

result #6 and #7 and #8 had nothing to do with the C programming language

result #9 is for something called the batky-howell advanced C course,
with merely a single chapter on linked-lists (nothing else like tree's ADT's
etc).

result #10 is another thing totally unrelated to the C programming language.

it would be wise, before asking someone to look up something that proves
your point, to look it up yourself first, just in case

anyway, you still have not answered exactly *who* considers these
things to be advanced concepts.

> I
> think your version of 'C Bible'(you know what I am refering to) has every
> topic I mentioned.Does it?try to move along with the world.

I did, i googled for "advanced C", is google different on your world ?

>
> > > along with Memory/Buffer
> > > manipulation,> basic.> Advanced pointer concepts,> theres that word
> "advanced" again ... exactly *what* do you
> > mean by "advanced pointer concepts" ???> there is no "advanced" pointer
> concepts, with pointers, either
> > you "get it" or you dont ...> > System call interface/Portability
> Programming,
> > very basic as well, unless you dont have the docs for the> system calls
> you want to do
> > > Bit Field Manipulation etc> that is *very* basic.
>
> again I am talking about techniques exploiting the power of these.try to
> differentiate a professional & a learner.In any part of the world technology
> is taught in 2 modes... 'Introductory' & 'Advanced'.3-4 in many cases.you
> are exceptional ofcourse.
>

i think not, i might be normal, or just about average, but not exceptional.

> > >.Do you know anything 'more'?> i suspect that most C programmers do, wrt
> to the language anyway.
>
> I guess you are one of those.Please let us know what more?
>
> > also, please do not toppost, thanks
> thanks
>
> > goose,
> > does this make me "advancedd" or what ?
> I would be very glad to know from you,Mr.goose, what else in the world

what do you mean "else" ??? I never categorised *anything* under the umbrella
of "advanced".

> ,wuold you categorize under 'Advanced C'.I know you are not ready to put
> anything under it,because for you everything is 'Basic'...'Very Basic'.funny
>

no, not really funny ... but you will find it so when you realise that
ADTs, linked-lists, tree's of every type, etc are not advanced "C" concepts,
but merely usefull data constructs that you will encounter in every language.

just because you are able to do them in C, it does not mean that doing them
in C is /advanced/ ...

hth
goose,
google is your fiend !!!!

"DSKR" <> wrote in message news:<3efd486e@shknews01>...
> "goose" <> wrote in message
>
> >> when would anyone consider something to be difficult?
> >> when there is relatively simpler version of it...right?
> > I'm not so sure. for it to have an "advanced" badge, i'd suggest
> > that "it" (whatever it may be), require more skill, training or experience
> > (or all three) to operate or use.
>
> Require 'more'. What is that more and how do you get it?....So you accept
> that there is 'lesser' variant of 'it', and it's present in everything.

<angry>
I would like you to note that I have *not* agreed that "there is a lesser
variant of everything" !!!

if you would be so kind as to not mis-quote me again, I would very much
appreciate it !!!

I do feel that there are some things which do *not* have a lesser variant,
primarily because the thing in question is simple. As to whether the C
programming language is a creature like that, I suppose it might differ
according to the individual.

but that is not what you were stating. you stated (more than once) that
it is accepted that ADT's, tree's and a whole lot of other issues that
are not exclusively related to the C programming language are "advanced
C" concepts. you have not yet said who considers them to be advanced ...

> C is
> not any exception. One needs 'more' training for some concepts in C and he
> feels that to be advanced 'compared' to basic concepts he learned,because it
> required more effort.

by that line of reasoning, the ability to read and decipher shakespearean
quotations ("Olde English") would be an "advanced" concept ? or something
that would only be taught as part of an advanced language course ?

>
> If you go and ask a guy, who has been driving a Mack with a 18-gear floor
> shifter for many years, 'how do you find driving a car with an automatic
> gearbox', What would be his reply?! This is what happening to you
> Mr.Goose.That is why I quoted *looking from the perspective of a learner*.
> Please come out of your organized belief (politely) and then give it an
> another thought.

I have given it another thought, an I've already stated that from the
perspective of a learner, *everything* is an advanced concept.

>
> > A learner on my skill/training/experience level may find nothing
> > advanced left in the language, and find everything complex in the
> > problems that i try to solve using the language.
>
> You said it yourself. "nothing advanced *left* in the language".So when you
> were novice, you too felt some concepts to be advanced.Now find 'advanced'
> things in domain specific problems.When you become expert in such a domain,
> you will find nothing advanced in that domain.
>

not what I meant, let me clarify : C is a simple language, I would
say that it is the simplest of all the languages that I have learned.
it has none of the extras that other languages have (support for exceptions,
type-safety until the programmer goes blue, concept of classes, objects,
etc).

ADTs, data structures, trees, etc are *not* advanced C concepts. you may
argue that they are advanced data constructs (although, they are possibly
the simpler ones around, with the exception of regular arrays), but
they are not advanced C concepts.

<snipped>
>
> Your quote again...
> > I'm not so sure. for it to have an "advanced" badge, i'd suggest
> > that "it" (whatever it may be), require more skill, training or experience
> > (or all three) to operate or use.
>
> Doesn't */difficult-ish/ thing* you found require more skill?

yes, but its not what you asked, is it ?

> > but you will need a good grasp of data structures and algorithms
> > to solve most problems.
> definitely one will need them.But can't we do with out them?
>

i sincerely doubt it, no matter what the language is that you are
programming in.

goose,
she sells C shells by the c-shore

"goose" <> wrote in message > > >> when would anyone
consider something to be difficult?
> > >> when there is relatively simpler version of it...right?
> > > I'm not so sure. for it to have an "advanced" badge, i'd suggest
> > > that "it" (whatever it may be), require more skill, training or
experience
> > > (or all three) to operate or use.
> >
> > Require 'more'. What is that more and how do you get it?....So you
accept
> > that there is 'lesser' variant of 'it', and it's present in everything.
>
> <angry>
> I would like you to note that I have *not* agreed that "there is a lesser
> variant of everything" !!!
>
Please don't get frustrated.It is very clear that you are not going to
accept anything in words.I have shown you so many evidences to support my
argument, in my earlier post today.I can show you many
more.....books...courses....tutorials...etc *Show* me evidences to prove
your argument.

-DSKR

"goose" <> wrote in message
> "DSKR" <> wrote in message
> > "goose" <> wrote in message
> > may be not by 'unique' persons like you.do a search...'Advanced C' on
> > google.you will then underand by whom...they are considered 'Advanced
C'.
>
> the first search I did was for "advanced C" (with the quotes).
> result #1 pointed to a webpage which had none of the topics
> you mentioned above (ADT's, etc) - http://cplus.about.com/cs/advancedc/
> result #2 and #3 pointed to accu book lists, both of which were much to
> long for me to read through. the advanced C books no doubt covered
> the scenarios you listed.
>
> result #4 is the outline of a course for C. "Description This course
> covers advanced features of C in the use of C in more advanced
applications."
> of the 13 highlights of the syllabus listed, only one of them mentions
> data structures like you wanted; surely a weak case for data structures
> to be "advanced C" ?
>
> result #5 takes me to an advanced C tutorial (or so it calls itself),
> which *never* *even* *mentions* data structures like you wanted.
> (it is, in case you were wondering, an x86-based tut on video drivers)
>
> result #6 and #7 and #8 had nothing to do with the C programming language
>
> result #9 is for something called the batky-howell advanced C course,
> with merely a single chapter on linked-lists (nothing else like tree's
ADT's etc).
>
> result #10 is another thing totally unrelated to the C programming
language.
>
> it would be wise, before asking someone to look up something that proves
> your point, to look it up yourself first, just in case

wow,what a great technique of interpreting a search result. What should you
look at in a search result? Something related to *what you want* or
*everything* it displays?(should I tell you how a link gets first place in a
search result?)In this case you should have been looking at pages that
display 'Advanced C' concepts.Not book reviews,skincare related stuff or
serum related things.
Just the first two pages of my search("Advanced C") on google displayed the
following links related to *Advanced C*.I got 15,550 results.(Google doesn't
display a link if it doesn't contain 'Advanced C'...Right?). Ok, I am not
listing them all.I am
posting the *related results* displyed on 'FIRST TWO' Pages.
http://www.willcam.com/c-adv.html
http://www.batky-howell.com/courses/...ucts/advc.html
http://www.mentor-communications.com/advcprog.html
http://www.bdsoft.com/courses/advc.html
http://crypto.apiit.edu.my/corptrain/c_advanced.html
http://www.itcourseware.com/Outlines/advc.html
http://www.trainingetc.com/Advanced_...ng_Course.html

Kindly refer these and give a reply.If you are not satisfied with
these....refer all 15,000 odd links.


> anyway, you still have not answered exactly *who* considers these
> things to be advanced concepts.
> > I think your version of 'C Bible'(you know what I am refering to) has
every
> > topic I mentioned.Does it?try to move along with the world.
> I did, i googled for "advanced C", is google different on your world ?
>

I request fellow group members to make a similar search and let me know if
the result is anything different.

-DSKR

"DSKR" <> wrote in message news:<3f00191e@shknews01>...
> "goose" <> wrote in message
> > "DSKR" <> wrote in message
> > > "goose" <> wrote in message
> > > may be not by 'unique' persons like you.do a search...'Advanced C' on
> > > google.you will then underand by whom...they are considered 'Advanced
> C'.
> >
> > the first search I did was for "advanced C" (with the quotes).
> > result #1 pointed to a webpage which had none of the topics
> > you mentioned above (ADT's, etc) - http://cplus.about.com/cs/advancedc/
> > result #2 and #3 pointed to accu book lists, both of which were much to
> > long for me to read through. the advanced C books no doubt covered
> > the scenarios you listed.
> >
> > result #4 is the outline of a course for C. "Description This course
> > covers advanced features of C in the use of C in more advanced
> applications."
> > of the 13 highlights of the syllabus listed, only one of them mentions
> > data structures like you wanted; surely a weak case for data structures
> > to be "advanced C" ?
> >
> > result #5 takes me to an advanced C tutorial (or so it calls itself),
> > which *never* *even* *mentions* data structures like you wanted.
> > (it is, in case you were wondering, an x86-based tut on video drivers)
> >
> > result #6 and #7 and #8 had nothing to do with the C programming language
> >
> > result #9 is for something called the batky-howell advanced C course,
> > with merely a single chapter on linked-lists (nothing else like tree's
> ADT's etc).
> >
> > result #10 is another thing totally unrelated to the C programming
> language.
> >
> > it would be wise, before asking someone to look up something that proves
> > your point, to look it up yourself first, just in case
>
> wow,what a great technique of interpreting a search result.

what do you mean "interpretation" ??? that is the first page
of my search. surely you dont expect me to search through all the
results to justify your argument ?

> What should you
> look at in a search result? Something related to *what you want* or
> *everything* it displays?(should I tell you how a link gets first place in a
> search result?)

your theory would be interesting,

> In this case you should have been looking at pages that
> display 'Advanced C' concepts.Not book reviews,skincare related stuff or
> serum related things.

yes, and of the links I found on the first page, I *did* mention the
ones that said "advanced C" concepts.

and of all the ones that mention advanced C concepts, only *one* of
them had a chapter on data structures that you referred to.

> Just the first two pages of my search("Advanced C") on google displayed the
> following links related to *Advanced C*.I got 15,550 results.(Google doesn't
> display a link if it doesn't contain 'Advanced C'...Right?). Ok, I am not
> listing them all.I am
> posting the *related results* displyed on 'FIRST TWO' Pages.
> http://www.willcam.com/c-adv.html

it lists 13 items in its TOC, only 1 of which is data structures.

> http://www.batky-howell.com/courses/...ucts/advc.html

this does not refer to ADTs, trees, etc as "advanced"

> http://www.mentor-communications.com/advcprog.html

this "advanced C" class is a joke, amongst other things, they
offer to teach one how to open, read and write files using std. c
functions.

otoh, it *does* mention queues, stacks and binary trees

> http://www.bdsoft.com/courses/advc.html

this does not refer to ADTs, trees, etc as "advanced"
(it does refer to other course contents as advanced, though).

> http://crypto.apiit.edu.my/corptrain/c_advanced.html

this does not refer to ADTs, trees, etc as "advanced".

> http://www.itcourseware.com/Outlines/advc.html

this site was down when I tried (8:30am, gmt +2)

> http://www.trainingetc.com/Advanced_...ng_Course.html

down when i tried.

>
> Kindly refer these and give a reply.

have done so, where possible. it seems you and one other person in
the entire world thinks that ADT's are an advanced C concept.

> If you are not satisfied with
> these....refer all 15,000 odd links.


ADT's, tree's, etc are *NOT* an advanced C concept, they are an
advanced /java/ concept. refer to all 56000 links when you do a search
for "advanced java" ...

see ?

cac,
goose,
wish I could reset the followups, but posting from google.

"DSKR" <> wrote in message news:<3f001918@shknews01>...
> "goose" <> wrote in message > > >> when would anyone
> consider something to be difficult?
> > > >> when there is relatively simpler version of it...right?
> > > > I'm not so sure. for it to have an "advanced" badge, i'd suggest
> > > > that "it" (whatever it may be), require more skill, training or
> experience
> > > > (or all three) to operate or use.
> > >
> > > Require 'more'. What is that more and how do you get it?....So you
> accept
> > > that there is 'lesser' variant of 'it', and it's present in everything.
> >
> > <angry>
> > I would like you to note that I have *not* agreed that "there is a lesser
> > variant of everything" !!!
> >
> Please don't get frustrated.

why not ?

you have mis-quoted me ... how would you like it if I said that
"DSKR has said that using integers is an advanced C concept" ???

you wont like that very much, will you ?

> It is very clear that you are not going to
> accept anything in words.

actually, if you were to *post* something significant other than your
own opinion (and thus far, your argument has been "everyone knows that
ADT's and treesa, etc are advanced C concepts), I would gladly shut up.

> I have shown you so many evidences to support my
> argument, in my earlier post today.

no you haven't. only a single one of the 20 results you looked at
from google refers to stacks, trees, ADTs, etc as "advanced", all the others
do not!!!

> I can show you many
> more.....books...courses....tutorials...etc


if you can, then go ahead.
otherwise stfd

> *Show* me evidences to prove
> your argument.

*you* made the claim, *you* show the proof.

do you even remember what your argument was ???

if you cannot even remember (and I can see that you dont, or
else you would not have asked me to prove my argument), then
what the hell are you going on about?

for the last time (and pay close attention, i'm giving you a clue)
stacks, trees and other ADTS are not specific to the C programming
language. they can be implemented in *most* languages.

therefore they are *not* advanced C concepts, for if they were, then
they would also have to be advanced java concepts, advanced assembly
concepts, advanced pascal concepts, advanced c++ concepts, etc ad nauseum
....

they are *NOT*, repeat, _NOT_ advanced from the language pov. you may,
if you so wish, consider them to be advanced data structure concepts.

advanced C, I would think, would be implementing function-lookup tables
to do runtime-overloading, writing data-containers that are generic
(as Neil Cerutti pointed out), implementing OO, along with inheritance.

writing a mere stack, or binary tree, ar queue, or doing bit
manipulation is simple in comparison, once you know how your data
structure is supposed to work.

how can you call something that is thought to all college first-years
(who are studying C) "advanced" is beyond me ...

if it was advanced, varsities might wait till the students are in
their second year before teaching it to them.

hand
goose,
btw, search "introduction to C" and "stacks" on google. a lot of courses
teach stacks to the first-year students.

"goose" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> > It is very clear that you are not going to
> > accept anything in words.
>
> actually, if you were to *post* something significant other than your
> own opinion (and thus far, your argument has been "everyone knows that
> ADT's and treesa, etc are advanced C concepts), I would gladly shut up.
>
> > I have shown you so many evidences to support my
> > argument, in my earlier post today.
>
> no you haven't. only a single one of the 20 results you looked at
> from google refers to stacks, trees, ADTs, etc as "advanced", all the
others
> do not!!!

Any person following this thread, would have by now realised that you are
100%
MAD(I am too decent to use vulgar words like you did) and that you are also
100% BLIND, because you were unable to find a single concept of many things
I categorize as Advanced C, in any on the 7 links I posted(Results from just
the first two pages of search) nor will you find anything in any of the
15,000 odd results your search would display. Even if you find something,you
would just say that the site was down.You would always say that I didn't
show you a single evidence and you would never show a single proof which
supports your argument.

just to prove your meaningless arguments to the fellow members I am quoting
my reply to your other post, here
you replied....
> therefore they are *not* advanced C concepts, for if they were, then
> they would also have to be advanced java concepts, advanced assembly
> concepts, advanced pascal concepts, advanced c++ concepts, etc ad
nauseum
and in your reply you said that
> ADT's, tree's, etc are *NOT* an advanced C concept, they are an
> advanced /java/ concept. refer to all 56000 links...

so Mr.MAD, I now realised how much time I wasted trying to argue with you.I
sincerely pity the condition of your employer & colleagues.May GOD save
you.Bye

>
>
> > *Show* me evidences to prove
> > your argument.
>
> *you* made the claim, *you* show the proof.
>
> do you even remember what your argument was ???
>
> if you cannot even remember (and I can see that you dont, or
> else you would not have asked me to prove my argument), then
> what the hell are you going on about?
>
> for the last time (and pay close attention, i'm giving you a clue)
> stacks, trees and other ADTS are not specific to the C programming
> language. they can be implemented in *most* languages.
>
> therefore they are *not* advanced C concepts, for if they were, then
> they would also have to be advanced java concepts, advanced assembly
> concepts, advanced pascal concepts, advanced c++ concepts, etc ad nauseum
> ...
>

"goose" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> "DSKR" <> wrote in message
news:<3f00191e@shknews01>...
> > "goose" <> wrote in message
> > > "DSKR" <> wrote in message
> > > > "goose" <> wrote in message
> > > > may be not by 'unique' persons like you.do a search...'Advanced C'
on
> > > > google.you will then underand by whom...they are considered
'Advanced
> > C'.
> > >
> > > the first search I did was for "advanced C" (with the quotes).
> > > result #1 pointed to a webpage which had none of the topics
> > > you mentioned above (ADT's, etc) -
http://cplus.about.com/cs/advancedc/
> > > result #2 and #3 pointed to accu book lists, both of which were much
to
> > > long for me to read through. the advanced C books no doubt covered
> > > the scenarios you listed.
> > >
> > > result #4 is the outline of a course for C. "Description This course
> > > covers advanced features of C in the use of C in more advanced
> > applications."
> > > of the 13 highlights of the syllabus listed, only one of them mentions
> > > data structures like you wanted; surely a weak case for data
structures
> > > to be "advanced C" ?
> > >
> > > result #5 takes me to an advanced C tutorial (or so it calls itself),
> > > which *never* *even* *mentions* data structures like you wanted.
> > > (it is, in case you were wondering, an x86-based tut on video drivers)
> > >
> > > result #6 and #7 and #8 had nothing to do with the C programming
language
> > >
> > > result #9 is for something called the batky-howell advanced C course,
> > > with merely a single chapter on linked-lists (nothing else like tree's
> > ADT's etc).
> > >
> > > result #10 is another thing totally unrelated to the C programming
> > language.
> > >
> > > it would be wise, before asking someone to look up something that
proves
> > > your point, to look it up yourself first, just in case
> >
> > wow,what a great technique of interpreting a search result.
>
> what do you mean "interpretation" ??? that is the first page
> of my search. surely you dont expect me to search through all the
> results to justify your argument ?
>
> > What should you
> > look at in a search result? Something related to *what you want* or
> > *everything* it displays?(should I tell you how a link gets first place
in a
> > search result?)
>
> your theory would be interesting,
>
> > In this case you should have been looking at pages that
> > display 'Advanced C' concepts.Not book reviews,skincare related stuff or
> > serum related things.
>
> yes, and of the links I found on the first page, I *did* mention the
> ones that said "advanced C" concepts.
>
> and of all the ones that mention advanced C concepts, only *one* of
> them had a chapter on data structures that you referred to.
>
> > Just the first two pages of my search("Advanced C") on google displayed
the
> > following links related to *Advanced C*.I got 15,550 results.(Google
doesn't
> > display a link if it doesn't contain 'Advanced C'...Right?). Ok, I am
not
> > listing them all.I am
> > posting the *related results* displyed on 'FIRST TWO' Pages.
> > http://www.willcam.com/c-adv.html
>
> it lists 13 items in its TOC, only 1 of which is data structures.
>
> > http://www.batky-howell.com/courses/...ucts/advc.html
>
> this does not refer to ADTs, trees, etc as "advanced"
>
> > http://www.mentor-communications.com/advcprog.html
>
> this "advanced C" class is a joke, amongst other things, they
> offer to teach one how to open, read and write files using std. c
> functions.
>
> otoh, it *does* mention queues, stacks and binary trees
>
> > http://www.bdsoft.com/courses/advc.html
>
> this does not refer to ADTs, trees, etc as "advanced"
> (it does refer to other course contents as advanced, though).
>
> > http://crypto.apiit.edu.my/corptrain/c_advanced.html
>
> this does not refer to ADTs, trees, etc as "advanced".
>
> > http://www.itcourseware.com/Outlines/advc.html
>
> this site was down when I tried (8:30am, gmt +2)
>
> > http://www.trainingetc.com/Advanced_...ng_Course.html
>
> down when i tried.
>
> >
> > Kindly refer these and give a reply.
>
> have done so, where possible. it seems you and one other person in
> the entire world thinks that ADT's are an advanced C concept.
>
> > If you are not satisfied with
> > these....refer all 15,000 odd links.
>
>
> ADT's, tree's, etc are *NOT* an advanced C concept, they are an
> advanced /java/ concept. refer to all 56000 links when you do a search
> for "advanced java" ...

again a proof of how MAD you are.In the other post today you said,
> therefore they are *not* advanced C concepts, for if they were, then
> they would also have to be advanced java concepts, advanced assembly
> concepts, advanced pascal concepts, advanced c++ concepts, etc ad
nauseum
and in this post you say that
> ADT's, tree's, etc are *NOT* an advanced C concept, they are an
> advanced /java/ concept. refer to all 56000 links...
so Mr.MAD, I now realised how much time I wasted trying to argue with you.I
sincerely pity the condition of your employer & colleagues.May GOD save
you.Bye

>
> see ?
>
> cac,
> goose,
> wish I could reset the followups, but posting from google.

"DSKR" <> wrote in message news:<3f015190@shknews01>...
<snipped>

> again a proof of how MAD you are.In the other post today you said,
> > therefore they are *not* advanced C concepts, for if they were, then
> > they would also have to be advanced java concepts, advanced assembly
> > concepts, advanced pascal concepts, advanced c++ concepts, etc ad
> nauseum
> and in this post you say that
> > ADT's, tree's, etc are *NOT* an advanced C concept, they are an
> > advanced /java/ concept. refer to all 56000 links...
> so Mr.MAD, I now realised how much time I wasted trying to argue with you.

are you merely oblivious to irony ? or do you regard stooping
to personal remarks as vindication of your argument ?

> I
> sincerely pity the condition of your employer & colleagues.May GOD save
> you.Bye

good luck, hope you figure out the difference between data structures
and the language ... thought I could enlighten you, sorry ...


dont worry, you'll get it ... eventually ...

hand,
goose,
gonna go study the advanced concept of using emacs as a tex editor,
just now ...