Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Discussing the criticisms

Reply
Thread Tools

Discussing the criticisms

 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
jacob navia wrote:
[...]
> JUST POLEMIC. When I say that GC doesn't need any changes to the
> language, K. Thomson (that is one of the most reasonable of them)
> says that programs that store pointers in files or elsewhere *could*
> be broken by a GC. And he adds without noticing the irony that of course
> he can't find any real world examples of such a program...

[...]

My failure to produce a real-world example does not prove, does not even
*suggest*, that no such example exists.

If you propose a change to the language that *could* break existing
portable code, you should mention that. That's all I was saying. I
didn't even suggest that GC (either as an extension or as a new language
feature) is a bad idea. *All* I said is that if you're going to use GC,
you have to be a bit more careful about how you handle pointers, and
that this fact should not be ignored.

I made a minor technical point and you blew it completely out of proportion.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <(E-Mail Removed)>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard Bos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> We had another thread discussing the criticisms to C in a
> wikipedia article.


Yes, we did. So why are you creating yet another thread to spout your
preconceptions? Why not use that, perfectly good, existing, thread to do
so? What reason to cause more needless clutter in this newsgroup's topic
list? Whence this habit that you seem to have picked up the last couple
of months? It is not clever, it is not nice, it is not honest, and
you're not doing yourself any favours by it. Knock it off already. When
you have something to add to a thread - _do so_. Don't force it to spill
over into more and more threads full of bumf and bluster.

Richard
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
On 15 Nov, 20:27, (E-Mail Removed) (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:52:18 +0100, jacob navia
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Ian Collins wrote:
> >> jacob navia wrote:


> >>> -----
> >>> 14: No native support for multithreading and networking
> >>> This is ridiculous. Most networking libraries are in C! Multithreading
> >>> support would be a mistake, since threads are a mistake.
> >>> -----


<snip>

> >I will leave the arguments for the experts, specially
> >reference (2)

>
> >(1)
> >Why Threads Are A Bad Idea (for most purposes)
> >John Ousterhout
> >Sun Microsystems Laboratories
> >(E-Mail Removed)
> >http://www.sunlabs.com/~ouster
> >1996 USENIX Technical Conference
> >(January 25, 1996)
> >(2)
> >----------------------------------------------------
> >The Problem with Threads
> >Edward A. Lee
> >Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
> >University of California at Berkeley
> >Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2006-1
> >http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/Te...CS-2006-1.html
> >January 10, 2006
> >---------------------------------------------------

>
> Check your URLs. The first is broken and the second is an
> abstract.


....with a pointer to the actual paper
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/Te...ECS-2006-1.pdf


--
Nick Keighley
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Potter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
jacob navia wrote:
> Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> We had another thread discussing the criticisms to C
>>> in a wikipedia article. No one from this group really
>>> addressed those criticisms besides the usual "nonsense"
>>> and similar contributions.

>
> JUST POLEMIC. When I say that GC doesn't need any changes to the


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

--
Philip Potter pgp <at> doc.ic.ac.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
Spiros Bousbouras
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
On Nov 15, 4:11 pm, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> We had another thread discussing the criticisms to C in a
> wikipedia article. No one from this group really addressed
> those criticisms besides the usual "nonsense" and similar
> contributions.
>
> With this post I want to go a bit deeper into those, at least
> address them individually.


If that's what you really want to do then I'm afraid that
you chose an entirely hopeless way of doing it. Each of the
issues you mention could very well occupy a big thread
on its own and some of them actually have , in fact some
have occupied several threads. So are you really hoping that
a constructive discussion can ensue where all of these will
be discussed in parallel ??? The best scenario I can
envision for this thread is that it will be ignored , the worse
(and sadly the most likely) is that it will lead to hundreds
of posts with all people talking about all kinds of issues
most of them out of topic.

From your long list I will only quote 1 item below.

> 14: No native support for multithreading and networking
> This is ridiculous. Most networking libraries are in C!
> Multithreading support would be a mistake, since threads
> are a mistake.


I quite disagree with the threads is a mistake part
(although this particular thread is) but it deserves a
thread on its own and it should be on comp.programming
not here.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
jacob navia wrote On 11/15/07 18:30,:
>
> I said that most answers did not even try to have a technical discussion
> about the issues addressed in the critique of the wikipedia article but
> remained in the level of summary answers without any substantial
> argumentation.


Perhaps people are weary of argument.

> I am not sneering at the value of the opinion of other people,


.... and a few lines later ...

> All of them took their usual negative attitude


.... and that sort of thing I, for one, find wearisome.

--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Eric Sosman wrote:
> jacob navia wrote On 11/15/07 18:30,:
>> I said that most answers did not even try to have a technical discussion
>> about the issues addressed in the critique of the wikipedia article but
>> remained in the level of summary answers without any substantial
>> argumentation.

>
> Perhaps people are weary of argument.
>
>> I am not sneering at the value of the opinion of other people,

>
> ... and a few lines later ...
>
>> All of them took their usual negative attitude

>
> ... and that sort of thing I, for one, find wearisome.
>



Me too. It would be better that people tried to be positive,
show arguments for their opinions, and at least TRIED to
explain why they arrive at their conclusions.

Just saying

"It will not work"

Or

"C is like that. Take it or leave it"

doesn't bring anybody further in the discussion.


The discussion about the abstract data types was destroyed by
Heathfield and Co, in the usual manner. They did not propose
a single bit of code, let people work and just limited
themselves to a negative attitude that eventually destroyed
the positive discussion that the people that proposed a standard
interface for lists etc did.

People brought their coden worked to get something out of this
group, and they were just ignored by these people
that of course were right: nothing came out of it.

After destroying the dicussion, they were right. It just
can't be done.

Great.

Then, abstracting away all this facts you say:

> ... and that sort of thing I, for one, find wearisome.



Poor Eric. I am so sad for you.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Harter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:25:40 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 15 Nov, 20:27, (E-Mail Removed) (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:52:18 +0100, jacob navia
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >Ian Collins wrote:
>> >> jacob navia wrote:

>
>> >>> -----
>> >>> 14: No native support for multithreading and networking
>> >>> This is ridiculous. Most networking libraries are in C! Multithreading
>> >>> support would be a mistake, since threads are a mistake.
>> >>> -----

>
><snip>
>
>> >I will leave the arguments for the experts, specially
>> >reference (2)

>>
>> >(1)
>> >Why Threads Are A Bad Idea (for most purposes)
>> >John Ousterhout
>> >Sun Microsystems Laboratories
>> >(E-Mail Removed)
>> >http://www.sunlabs.com/~ouster
>> >1996 USENIX Technical Conference
>> >(January 25, 1996)
>> >(2)
>> >----------------------------------------------------
>> >The Problem with Threads
>> >Edward A. Lee
>> >Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
>> >University of California at Berkeley
>> >Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2006-1
>> >http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/Te...CS-2006-1.html
>> >January 10, 2006
>> >---------------------------------------------------

>>
>> Check your URLs. The first is broken and the second is an
>> abstract.

>
>...with a pointer to the actual paper
>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/Te...ECS-2006-1.pdf


Thanks, I missed that. Still, it would have been better to give
the URL of the actual paper.


Richard Harter, (E-Mail Removed)
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
jacob navia wrote On 11/16/07 11:22,:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>
>>jacob navia wrote On 11/15/07 18:30,:
>>
>>>I said that most answers did not even try to have a technical discussion
>>>about the issues addressed in the critique of the wikipedia article but
>>>remained in the level of summary answers without any substantial
>>>argumentation.

>>
>> Perhaps people are weary of argument.
>>
>>
>>>I am not sneering at the value of the opinion of other people,

>>
>>... and a few lines later ...
>>
>>
>>>All of them took their usual negative attitude

>>
>>... and that sort of thing I, for one, find wearisome.
>>

>
>
>
> Me too. It would be better that people tried to be positive,
> show arguments for their opinions, and at least TRIED to
> explain why they arrive at their conclusions.
> [...]


Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. By "that
sort of thing" I did not mean the negative attitudes (a
negative attitude toward gets(), for example, is fully
justified), but your gratuitous use of "their usual
negative attitude," an inflammatory if not downright
insulting remark.

Your usual combative, antagonistic, insensitive,
and egomaniacal, twaddle wearies me. (Note that I
am not sneering, oh, no, not I.)

--
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Eric Sosman <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> jacob navia wrote On 11/15/07 18:30,:
>>
>> I said that most answers did not even try to have a technical discussion
>> about the issues addressed in the critique of the wikipedia article but
>> remained in the level of summary answers without any substantial
>> argumentation.

>
> Perhaps people are weary of argument.
>
>> I am not sneering at the value of the opinion of other people,

>
> ... and a few lines later ...
>
>> All of them took their usual negative attitude

>
> ... and that sort of thing I, for one, find wearisome.


Agreed. They should try to remain open minded before doing the
habitual closing of ranks.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[OT] which newsgroup(s) for discussing continuous integration? marlow.andrew@googlemail.com Java 2 11-07-2008 04:25 PM
Group for Discussing about boost library Sarath C++ 5 02-22-2007 08:53 PM
Just as we were discussing the Pentax ist-D... Mark Roberts Digital Photography 2 01-31-2004 12:48 AM
Discussing what I post Tracker Computer Security 5 10-02-2003 03:56 PM



Advertisments