Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Discussing the criticisms

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

> 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.


Get off your high horse. Do you read some of the comments? Jacob is
right.

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


And you accuse Jacob of being insulting? All he suggested were some
"negative comments". Which are, incidentally, evident in the thread.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard Heathfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Eric Sosman said:

<snip>

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


I'm okay with "combative" (although it would be more pleasant to be fellow
seekers-after-truth). I can handle "antagonistic" (although it would be
more pleasant to have friendly discussions with friendly people), I don't
have a problem with "insensitive" (although it would be more pleasant to
be sensitive to others), and I am no stranger to "egomaniacal" (although
it would be more pleasant to recognise that others, too, have pride in
their knowledge, experience, accomplishments, and skill).

But it's the twaddle, Eric. I just can't hack the twaddle, the utter
drivel, that pours out in a seemingly endless stream. "Wearies" is
precisely the word.

--
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Eric Sosman wrote:
> jacob navia wrote:
>

.... snip ...
>>
>> 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.)


Definitely not sneering. That requires the appropriate lip curl,
and I see no sign whatsoever of that.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Richard Bos wrote:

> 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 do people keep responding to his efforts? He does this to get a
reaction. Reacting feeds the cycle. He posts his crap and gets a 40
message thread out of it. What possible reason would he have for
stopping.

It's obvious that disapproval means nothing to him. The only way to get
Jacob to stop this sort of nonsense is to have his efforts disappear
into the ether with nary an impact on the group. Then it becomes a
waste of his time because he won't get the attention he craves.

Some of us have taken to plonking him. I realize that some don't want
to do that, either so they can correct him when he replies to newbies
or to "encourage" his on-topic efforts. The latter seems to have little
or no beneficial effect. A short, standard message about him posted in
response to off-topic posting (with no follow-up) would be sufficient
in my opinion.




Brian
 
Reply With Quote
 
user923005
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
On Nov 16, 2:25 am, 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 paperhttp://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1.pdf


Here is the conclusion of the paper:

"8 Conclusion
Concurrency in software is difficult. However, much of this difficulty
is a consequence of the abstractions for concurrency that we have
chosen to use. The dominant one in use today for generalpurpose
computing is threads. But non-trivial multi-threaded programs are
incomprehensible to humans. It is true that the programming model can
be improved through the use of design patterns, better granularity of
atomicity (e.g. transactions), improved languages, and formal methods.
However, these techniques merely chip away at the unnecessarily
enormous nondeterminism of the threading model. The model remains
intrinsically intractable. If we expect concurrent programming to be
mainstream, and if we demand reliability and predictability from
programs, then we must discard threads as a programming model.
Concurrent programming models can be constructed that are much more
predictable and understandable than threads. They are based on a very
simple principle: deterministic ends should be accomplished with
deterministic means. Nondeterminism should be judiciously and
carefully introduced where needed, and should be explicit in programs.
This principle seems obvious, yet it is not accomplished by threads.
Threads must be relegated to the engine room of computing, to be
suffered only by expert technology providers."

My paraphrasal:
Threads are hard to understand. Only smart people should program with
threads.

My rebuttal:
I write threaded code every day (basically, everything I write runs in
threaded environments), so it can't be that difficult.
Threads consume less resources than processes. Furthermore, the new
wave of horsepower seems to be derived from multiple CPUs and multiple
cores on the CPUs.

My summary:
We had better get used to threads.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
Default User wrote:
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
>> 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 do people keep responding to his efforts?


Well, maybe (just maybe) because what I do is not
wrong.

People that do not have any arguments try to intimidate me
(the anonymous attacks against myself and my family posted
in September) or try to ignore me (as the ridiculous attempts
of Heathfield and co) and it doesn't work.

Damm!

"The dogs bark but... the caravan goes on"


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
 
Reply With Quote
 
rosewater@mailinator.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2007
jacob navia wrote:
> Default User wrote:
> > Richard Bos wrote:
> >
> >> 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 do people keep responding to his efforts?

>
> Well, maybe (just maybe) because what I do is not
> wrong.


Yeah right, you keep telling yourself that.

>
> People that do not have any arguments try to intimidate me
> (the anonymous attacks against myself and my family posted
> in September) or try to ignore me (as the ridiculous attempts
> of Heathfield and co) and it doesn't work.


Well cry me a fricking river! You were the one who brought your family
into it, by announcing to all of Usenet that your daughter downloads
Japanese pornography in breach of copyright laws.

You have started two threads on an ill-informed, badly written and
generally stupid Wikipedia article (you weren't a contributor to it by
any chance?), which has already been discussed to death in the past in
this group. There can be absolutely no reason for this other than to
provoke a further flame war from those in the group who actually know
something about C.

You're like a dog returning to its own vomit - this persecution
complex you've built up for yourself needs to be constantly fueled by
well-deserved abuse you get when you post trash to this group.

If life had an AGC, you'd be the first bit of useless memory swept up
and thrown back onto the heap, just in case something useful could be
put in its place.

>
> Damm!
>
> "The dogs bark but... the caravan goes on"


If I were you, I'd go and see a psychiatrist. Oh, and go learn
something about C while you're at it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
user923005 wrote:
>

.... snip ...

> My paraphrasal:
> Threads are hard to understand. Only smart people should program
> with threads.
>
> My rebuttal:
> I write threaded code every day (basically, everything I write
> runs in threaded environments), so it can't be that difficult.
> Threads consume less resources than processes. Furthermore, the
> new wave of horsepower seems to be derived from multiple CPUs and
> multiple cores on the CPUs.


Between 30 and 40 years ago Per Brinch Hansen used the monitor
concept to write concurrent systems. They worked, and were simple
to understand.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
J. J. Farrell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
user923005 wrote:
> On Nov 15, 12:27 pm, (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.
>>>>> -----
>>>> I'll ignore the rest, but "since threads are a mistake" is utter nonsense.

>> Codswallop.
>>
>>> 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)

>
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs240/...d-usenix96.pdf
>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> 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.

>
> The "Threads are Bad" article does not suggest the elimination of
> threads. It suggests using threads when threads should be used and
> using events when events should be used. I guess that Jacob did not
> bother to read it but liked the catchy title.


Indeed. Perhaps I'm not reading very well tonight, but to my eyes
Ousterhout seems to be saying "instead of threads you should use
threads; and what's more you should use threads in exactly the way
you've always used threads". Ousterhout is arguing against a particular
style of programming with threads, certainly not against the use of threads.

It is hard to read his "Should You Abandon Threads? No" as "threads are
a mistake".
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
jacob navia wrote:
> Default User wrote:

[...]
>> Why do people keep responding to his efforts?

>
> Well, maybe (just maybe) because what I do is not
> wrong.

[...]

jacob, I see that "(E-Mail Removed)" has posted a followup.
This person is nothing more than a troll; he certainly does not
represent anyone else on this newsgroup. I encourage you to ignore him.

--
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
 
 
 
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