Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Open letter to Mr Thompson

Reply
Thread Tools

Open letter to Mr Thompson

 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2009
Look Keith:

You pointed out that an overflow checking mechanism should also
include checking for overflow whan a narrowing assignment
is done, i.e. an integer into a char, etc.

I think that's a good idea. Specifically, you said:

<quote>
Ok, if it's going to be controlled by a pragma, I wouldn't object to
using a separate one for conversions. But I would object to adding
one to the language without the other.
<end quote>

I answered you then, that it would be nice if you would propose
the narrowing conversion check, and I would propose the overflow check.

Specifically, I said:

It would be much more productive for all if you worked
to propose things too.

You answered to almost all the messages I wrote in that thread except
to that one.

You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.

I have proposed many things here, besides the extensions of
lcc-win. Some of them also in comp.std.c.

Maybe is time for you to propose a change to improve the language?

You seemed to agree (together with Sosman) that overflow checking is
necessary.

Why not getting positive for a change?

Yours sincerely
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2009
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Look Keith:
>
> You pointed out that an overflow checking mechanism should also
> include checking for overflow whan a narrowing assignment
> is done, i.e. an integer into a char, etc.
>
> I think that's a good idea. Specifically, you said:
>
> <quote>
> Ok, if it's going to be controlled by a pragma, I wouldn't object to
> using a separate one for conversions. But I would object to adding
> one to the language without the other.
> <end quote>
>
> I answered you then, that it would be nice if you would propose
> the narrowing conversion check, and I would propose the overflow check.
>
> Specifically, I said:
>
> It would be much more productive for all if you worked
> to propose things too.
>
> You answered to almost all the messages I wrote in that thread except
> to that one.


I dislike certain aspects of your proposal, and I'm not interested
in creating a parallel proposal that's consistent with it. My own
preference would be for something similar to an exception-handling
mechanism, probably not as elaborate as C++ or Ada's mechanism.

I might consider putting together a proposal along those lines, but
it's doubtful that I'll have the time.

I note that exception handling mechanisms for C have been proposed
before; I might look over some of those proposals.

> You have now the opportunity to prove that regulars aren't always
> just destroying, and that they can *propose* things also.
>
> I have proposed many things here, besides the extensions of
> lcc-win. Some of them also in comp.std.c.
>
> Maybe is time for you to propose a change to improve the language?
>
> You seemed to agree (together with Sosman) that overflow checking is
> necessary.
>
> Why not getting positive for a change?


"aren't always just destroying"??

"getting positive for a change"??

What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?

You've proposed a change to the language. I've spent substantial
time reading it, critiquing it, and suggesting improvements.
And you thank me by insulting me.

If I do choose to propose any change to the C language, I'll do it
when and how I choose, and you will not be involved.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>
>> Why not getting positive for a change?

>
> "aren't always just destroying"??
>
> "getting positive for a change"??
>
> What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>


OK.

Regulars are like that. Go on then.

You seemed to be reasonable sometimes. Actually you are exactly like
heathfield and co.


 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
Keith Thompson a écrit :
>
> "aren't always just destroying"??
>
> "getting positive for a change"??
>
> What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
>


I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.

precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
that he contributes the change in the language the he
himself said would be correct.

The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
a simple regular...

He was forced to confirm what I said: regulars are *unable* to do
anything constructive. The only reason the feel their
existence is to police this group, making all other people
go away.

Many valuable contributors have left this group, as many
have left the language itself. Nobody tries to promote C
in public, groups about C are disbaneded, and we get
the situation in this group. They destroy everything
else.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
On 10 Sep, 13:39, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Keith Thompson a écrit :


> > "aren't always just destroying"??

>
> > "getting positive for a change"??

>
> > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?

>
> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.


which ought to tell you something...


> precisely when in a very courteous message,


!! I really think you actually believe that!

Did you read his post? He'd gone to the trouble to read and criticise
your proposal (criticism isn't a bad thing if it's done with the aim
of improving something).

You then come back with a series of sly digs.

Your fundamental mistake is to treat "the regulars" as a monolithic
group. If you have been sinned against (and you need to grow a much
thicker
skin) by one of your "regulars" and doesn't mean all the people
you call "regulars" are of the same opinion.

You've managed to provoke a very patient man.

Me, I only give 'em a little rope and then that's it.
I particularly object to you inventing my opinions for me- but thats
just
another symptom of your "regulars" obscession.


> I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.


you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
work involved in standardisation.

> The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
> a simple regular...


yeah right


> He was forced to confirm what I said: regulars are *unable* to do
> anything constructive. The only reason the feel their
> existence is to police this group, making all other people
> go away.


more RC

> Many valuable contributors have left this group, as many
> have left the language itself. Nobody tries to promote C
> in public, groups about C are disbaneded, and we get
> the situation in this group. They destroy everything
> else.


yadder yadder ya



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jens Thoms Toerring
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Keith Thompson a écrit :
> >
> > "aren't always just destroying"??
> >
> > "getting positive for a change"??
> >
> > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
> >


> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.


Perhaps that should make you think a bit.

> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.


Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
here). And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
your compiler.

You seem to have a complete blind spot when you write
something. I can hardly remember posts by you where you
don't insult someone (unless it's in reply to someone
you seem to see as a potential customer). On the other
hand the smallest bit that could remotely be interpreted
as critique of anything you write drives you inevitably
into fits.

> The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
> a simple regular...


> The fear of being associated to an heretic is too much for
> a simple regular...


Bullshit. You and mostly you alone are constantly behaving
like a spoiled brat and I guess most people are, like me,
fed up with it to the brim. Your logic is always the same:
if someone doesn't immediately supports your hobby-horse idea
of the day, singing halleluya and praising you, then it is
"destroying" and "unproductive" or whatever other invective
just crosses your mind. Technical arguments from people
obviously having a much broader range of experience than you
don't count since what you don't know about doesn't exist
or is irrelevant.

Much luck with your newly-found friend, Mr. Nilges.

*PLONK*
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ (E-Mail Removed)
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
Nick Keighley a écrit :

>> I proposed
>> that he contributes the change in the language the he
>> himself said would be correct.

>
> you're probably beginning to work out there is a fair amount of
> work involved in standardisation.
>


Sure, that's why Thompson and the other regs refuse to do anything.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
Jens Thoms Toerring a écrit :
>
> Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
> Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
> your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
> and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
> that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
> newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
> here).


I am talking about taking the positive step of proposing a
change that he himself thinks is necessary.

He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
a change. That would be a break in the idea that C is
perfect as it is and all changes must be banned, as the
politics of the committee seems to be right now.

> And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
> post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
> your compiler.
>


I started a series of tutorials here (that you can
read in the archives) about many parts ofbthe language
that are normally left out. I spoke about debuggers, linkers,
and many other things. My posts were critized as
"off topic", etc by the same people

All my contributions where there isn't any mention of
lcc-win that I do regularly since years are ignored.

[rest of drivel snipped]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dik T. Winter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
In article <h8as25$slm$(E-Mail Removed)> (E-Mail Removed) writes:
> Keith Thompson a écrit :
> >
> > "aren't always just destroying"??
> >
> > "getting positive for a change"??
> >
> > What do you think I've been doing, you arrogant jerk?
> >

>
> I think it is the first time thompson insults somebody.
>
> precisely when in a very courteous message, I proposed
> that he contributes the change in the language the he
> himself said would be correct.


Very courteous? A message where you accuse Keith of "aren't always
just destrying" and "getting positive for a change"? Saying things
like that to somebody is courteous? Is that perhaps French courtesy?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2009
On 10 Sep, 14:40, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jens Thoms Toerring a écrit :


> > Your message was far from courteous. You again insulted
> > Keith by associating him with some cabale of "regulars" of
> > your imagination who allegedly are "always just destroying"
> > and asking him to dissociate himself from them, insinuating
> > that he's not "productive" or positive" otherwise in this
> > newsgroup (while he's one of the most helpful guys around
> > here).

>
> I am talking about taking the positive step of proposing a
> change that he himself thinks is necessary.


I don't think he actually claimed it was necessary.
He suggested that if you were going to have overflow
detection then potential overflows that you'd
ommitted form your proposal should be included (if
memory serves me right).


> He read and critics my proposals without ever proposing
> a change.


I thought he did propose a change..


> That would be a break in the idea that C is
> perfect


this is a strawman of your invention


> as it is and all changes must be banned, as the
> politics of the committee seems to be right now.


your own paranoid delusion


> *> And that from you who, in contrast, mostly seems to
>
> > post when there's the slightest chance to advertise for
> > your compiler.

>
> I started a series of tutorials here (that you can
> read in the archives) about many parts ofbthe language
> that are normally left out. I spoke about debuggers, linkers,


though interesting topics neither is part of the C language.
You could have posted your tutorials to a web-site and
announced them here. I admit you've have still got *someone*
complaining but you'd have had a lot less rocks thrown at you.


> and many other things. My posts were critized as
> "off topic",


becaus ethey were


> etc by the same people


I won't tolerate. Your "regulars conspiracy group" doesn't exist.
I'm going to call you on this, but not for a while...


> All my contributions where there isn't any mention of
> lcc-win that I do regularly since years are ignored.


....because I'm going to give you a good long rest.

PLONK!


 
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
Ken Thompson - Reflections on Trusting Trust pemo C Programming 2 01-18-2006 03:55 PM
Hunter S Thompson dvd Question TB DVD Video 3 02-21-2005 10:52 PM
ATTN: Andrew Thompson Ryan Stewart Java 3 06-25-2004 09:50 AM
for Mr Andrew Thompson re: Math.pow Question Michael B. Williams Java 1 05-30-2004 05:11 AM
Thompson's Computer Warehouse Me Computer Information 3 03-04-2004 06:33 PM



Advertisments