twitter: comp.lang.c - 18 new messages in 5 topics

comp.lang.c
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c?hl=en

comp.lang.c@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* C the complete nonsense - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/fee08dfa5e4cbaaa?hl=en
* Blonde C jokes - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/ad1c486bad884e91?hl=en
* formatting C source code (adding brackets { } to if else ) - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/4240700cc68be88c?hl=en
* Personal attacks by moderators in a moderated group are unprofessional - 6
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/fcaffc6b8db42751?hl=en
* In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: The Complete
Nonsense" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/caf17fab4e7d8530?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: C the complete nonsense
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/fee08dfa5e4cbaaa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 2:48 pm
From: Keith Thompson

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> I've been asked by Edward Nilges to comment on this webpage.

And you decided to do so? Ok, whatever.

> I had kept out of it, partly because of the tone of the debate, partly
> because, not having read "C the complete reference" I don't have a
> qualified opinion on the book.
> The webpage is too focused on errors to be considered a review, and it
> is too partisan to be considered an errata document. Much mention has
> been made on comp.lang.c of legal liability. I've no idea what the
> legal situation would be, except that this sort of "knocking copy" is
> very commonly available on the web.
>
> I think the title of Schildt's book invites misplaced criticism.
> Whilst the book is entitled a "reference" it is in fact a tutorial.

What is misplaced about criticizing a misleading title?

> The needs of pedagogy and definition are often opposed. A beginner
> needs an explanation in simple, everyday language.

A beginner also needs an explanation that's *correct*. Many of
Schildt's errors are just errors; there would be no pedagogical harm
in correcting them.

[...]

> The very first error in "C the complete nonsense" is:
>
> In general, negative numbers are represented using the two's
> complement approach...
> This is not a C feature. It is a common implementation, but it is
> specifically not required. (Binary is, but one's complement is not
> unheard of.)
>
> This is suprious, Schildt qualifes by "in general".

The phrase "in general" is ambiguous; it can mean either "usually" or
"always". Assuming that "in general" was meant as "usually", he could
(and IMHO should) have mentioned that other representations exist.

And is therefore ambiguous, and therefore IMHO should be avoided in a
book that purports to teach C.

> Enough said. Two errors in two errata. I could go on, doing exactly
> the same thing to "C the complete nonsense" as Seebs has done to
> Schildt.

So why did you stop after just two errors? If it was inappropriate
for Seebs to list just a subset of the errors rather than covering the
entire book, is it fair (to your readers, if not to Seebs, Schildt,
or Nilges) to criticize C:TCN based on just the first two errors?

In a quick reading, it appears to me that the first two listed errors
happen to be the least substantial. Keep reading. The third error
is a use of "%f" to print an expression of type size_t (followed by
a use of "%d" for the same purpose, but that's not *quite* as bad
an error). The fourth is an application of sizeof to a parameter
of type int[6], which is really of type int*. These are just plain
wrong, and they're demonstrations that Schildt didn't even try his
code before publishing it. The printf format error *might* be a
typo, perhaps one introduced in typesetting, but the sizeof error
is just a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding on Schildt's part.

And he claims to be teaching C.

As long as I'm posting I'll mention that
The "heap" is a DOS term...
is a perfectly correct statement. It doesn't necessarily imply
that it's *only* a DOS term. It also happens to be a Unix term,
and a Windows term, and a Symbian term, and so forth (and yes,
an updated version of the web page should probably clarify that).
The point is that it isn't a C term.

(Nilges doesn't seem to understand -- or maybe he does -- that the
more he keeps pushing his agenda, the more attention will be brought
to Schildt's errors.)

> I don't like libel laws and I think threats of legal action are heavy-
> handed, and not credible unless they come from the person allegedly
> libelled himself. I suspect Schildt himself just regards this sort of
> criticism as the inevitable concomitant of success. The books do very
> well on the market, and no-one is forced to buy them. However Nilges
> is actually right, "C the complete nonsense" is a bad webpage and
> should be either removed or substantially revised.

I disagree completely. "C: The Complete Nonsense" is a valuable
warning to those who might otherwise be misled by reading Schildt's
books. It could stand some revision, particularly an update to the
latest edition of the book.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <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"

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 3:57 pm
From: Seebs

On 2010-04-04, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I think the title of Schildt's book invites misplaced criticism.
> Whilst the book is entitled a "reference" it is in fact a tutorial.

I disagree. It *contains* a tutorial, but it also *contains* a reference.
The book has whole chapters of material which is structured and presented
as a reference.

It is a reference. It is sold as a reference, it claims to be a reference,
and it contains material structured like a reference. That it also contains
a tutorial doesn't change that.

It seems to me that maybe you ought to look at the book at least a little
before claiming that it's actually "a tutorial".

Furthermore, the fact is, when these books were selling well and people using
them came to this group, we consistently found that the book was a VERY BAD
tutorial -- people who learned C from Schildt had a horrible time learning
the language, because he does a very good job of creating cognitive maps
which are wrong, whether subtly or obviously.

> This is suprious, Schildt qualifes by "in general".

I don't think that qualification is strong enough to cover for the fact
that making this claim doesn't help at all with the teaching.

> Whilst I haven't read the book, this is probably spurious as well. The
> term "global variable" can be used either for file scope variables or
> variables with external linkage.

Not correctly.

> Enough said. Two errors in two errata. I could go on, doing exactly
> the same thing to "C the complete nonsense" as Seebs has done to
> Schildt.

You probably could -- but I think that you'd find that, even once you
nitpicked the nitpicks, you'd find that the substantive errors MASSIVELY
outweighed them.

Why did you pick two of the worst errata, rather than looking at, say,
the example where Schildt totally misidentifies the behavior of sizeof(),
or shows the use of %f to print a size_t?

Obviously, I don't agree. I agree that it might be beneficial to revise
the page... But why bother? The book in question is fifteen years old,
and modern editions, while they continue to teach extremely bad habits,
are still full of nonsense.

I am pretty offended that you seem to have gone out of your way to
cherry-pick bad examples rather than reading the whole selection and
developing an informed opinion. All you're doing here is supporting
a pathological and unrepentant abuser who has stated that his goal
in participating here is to attack the C language, C users, and this
newsgroup.

I do not think the material in C:TCN is particularly bad. Some of it's
not particularly good, but there's plenty there to demonstrate that
many of the errors in the book are absolutely beyond the scope of what
could reasonably come from someone even reasonably familiar with C.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 4:29 pm
From: Seebs

On 2010-04-04, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> I think the title of Schildt's book invites misplaced criticism.
>> Whilst the book is entitled a "reference" it is in fact a tutorial.

> So what you're actually saying is that the first error is on the front
> cover.

Basically. I would really like to know where this notion that it was
not a "reference" came from. Is this more Nilges stuff? His never-ending
list of mutually-exclusive claims as to why the book should not be
panned is too large for me to remember.

But really, I've read it, I've seen people use it. It's sold as a
reference, it's structured to be used as a reference, the book explicitly
states that it is intended for use by experienced programmers who need
to keep a reference around for looking things up...

The notion that it's "not a reference" is incomprehensible. It's a BAD
reference, to be sure, but that doesn't mean it's not a reference.

Where did that notion come from?

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 4:48 pm
From: Bill Reid

On Apr 4, 1:54 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>
> I've been asked by Edward Nilges to comment on this webpage.
> I had kept out of it, partly because of the tone of the debate, partly
> because, not having read "C the complete reference" I don't have a
> qualified opinion on the book.

And yet, like all members in good standing in this group,
here you are posting about it...

> The webpage is too focused on errors to be considered a review, and it
> is too partisan to be considered an errata document.

It might be good dessert topping...

> Much mention has
> been made on comp.lang.c of legal liability. I've no idea what the
> legal situation would be, except that this sort of "knocking copy" is
> very commonly available on the web.
>
I heard on TV that there's a bunch of crap on the
web but maybe they're just jealous...

> I think the title of Schildt's book invites misplaced criticism.
> Whilst the book is entitled a "reference" it is in fact a tutorial.
> The needs of pedagogy and definition are often opposed.

You know, you think and sound a little like "SpinNosey"
hisself...

> A beginner
> needs an explanation in simple, everyday language.

Well, this is an important point, but you're missing it,
again as a member in good standing in this group.

When you write a book (or a newspaper/magazine article,
or even a short story/novel, for that matter), you must
always consider two things: your target audience, and
where you want to take them.

Now when you say "beginner", what do you mean in the
context of the target audience for the book? "SpinNosey"
seems to think that the target audience are people who
have college degrees in Computer Science or an equivalent
knowledge level. This is fine, but does the book
really address THAT audience correctly in terms of
"taking them" to an understanding of "C" given their
CS knowledge?

> A reference work
> requires definitions, free from all error. It's very easy to find
> errata in books full of teaching code, particularly if you adopt
> stringent criteria.

I'm going to cut you off here, because you're talking
crap...you'd thank me if you knew how stupid you sound
in the next few sentences, so I'll snip them as a favor
to your family...
>
> The very first error in "C the complete nonsense" is:
>
> In general, negative numbers are represented using the two's
> complement approach...
> This is not a C feature. It is a common implementation, but it is
> specifically not required. (Binary is, but one's complement is not
> unheard of.)
>
> This is suprious, Schildt qualifes by "in general".
>
OK, but let's get back to my question: what PRACTICAL
lesson has a person with CS knowledge learned about "C"
from the above?

I'm actually thinking they may have a LITTLE something
out of it, so I kind of agree with you it may be "spurious"
to call that an "error"...but then I definitely DON'T
have a CS degree, you'd have to tell me what the point
is of the above...

> The next one is
> The following heading occurs:
>
> static Global Variables
> No such thing. A static variable outside of a function has file scope,
> which is distinct from global scope.
>
> Whilst I haven't read the book, this is probably spurious as well. The
> term "global variable" can be used either for file scope variables or
> variables with external linkage.
>
OK, here we go, read carefully. Once again, I'm no
CS guru, but IN GENERAL I think those people are
concerned about SCOPE and DURATION of variables in
a program.

Now here is a defining moment to impart an important
lesson to the CS audience about "C", and to me it seems
he blows it.

As you may or may not know, "C" uses the "static"
keyword differently in different places, and I think
very counter-intuitively and confusingly for ANYBODY,
BUT PARTICULARLY I WOULD THINK FOR A CS PERSON.

I mean what's your first thought when you hear
the word "static" in a computer programming context?
I know what MINE is, but how about you? Not that it
matters, since you're gonna be confused by the "static"
keyword no matter what. "C" is a very democratic language,
it screws over EVERYBODY who comes in contact with it.

In fact, it's basically a "feature" of the language
to do things sideways, bass-ackwards, upside-down,
and as inconsistently as possible. It's almost like
a practical joke played on the world by socially
maladjusted dorks taking out their revenge for
a tragic series of high school humiliations.

Now what I just wrote is, I believe, the only
CORRECT way to teach ANYBODY the "C" programming
language. If you include this in the Forward
to the book, it alerts the reader that they will
be encountering numerous examples of confusing
non-logic as they "learn" about "C".

Then when you come to the "static" keyword,
they're prepared to be flummoxed by "C" using
the word to RESTRICT scope in some places
and EXPANDING duration in others...and they're
much more likely to learn AND REMEMBER the
"rules".

But every book about "C" I've ever read was
a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME, even if it was "accurate",
because it failed to EXPLAIN the language, but
rather gave an implied EXCUSE by merely reciting
the "facts". Then when somebody actually tries
to write a "C" program and fails, they think
it's THEIR fault, and not the fault of the
language creators and book authors...BUT THE
TRUTH IS, FAILURE TO WRITE A "C" PROGRAM JUST
MEANS YOU'RE AN INTELLIGENT, CARING, DECENT,
NORMAL HUMAN BEING!!!

And as far as the subject book is concerned,
a header of "static Global Variables" DEFINITELY
counts as an error in MY book, per the above...

> Enough said. Two errors in two errata. I could go on,

No you couldn't, because when people say, "I could
go on", THEY NEVER CAN, they're just quitting while
they're ahead...

> doing exactly
> the same thing to "C the complete nonsense" as Seebs has done to
> Schildt.
>
This is getting out of hand...reviews of the review
of the book, truncated reviews of the review of the
book by somebody who's never read the book, now I'm
reviewing the truncated review of the review of the
book by somebody who's never read the book...what's
next, reviews of the review of the book by people
who've never read the review of the book?

> I don't like libel laws

Great, I'll get to work on my web-site about
you, with your address and the libel that you
run a child prostitution ring from that address
(that's how the nutcases in misc.invest.stocks
roll, it's a lot of fun). You have a poor
understanding of how civilized modern societies
MUST function...

> and I think threats of legal action are heavy-
> handed, and not credible unless they come from the person allegedly
> libelled himself.

In legal terms, nobody but the person libeled has
any "standing" to sue, which is just ONE of the
reasons that "SpinNosey" is so crazy with threats
lawsuits about stuff that's not about him...

> However Nilges
> is actually right, "C the complete nonsense" is a bad webpage and
> should be either removed or substantially revised.

Well, on careful review, it seems to bear out what the
guys on TV said about everything on the web being a
bunch of crap, but whaddaya gonna do? Remove every
crummy ill-conceived poorly-written useless web-site
from the Internet, and Cisco would go out of business
in two days...

---
William Ernest Reid

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 5:12 pm
From: Richard Heathfield

Keith Thompson wrote:
<snip>
> "C: The Complete Nonsense" is a valuable
> warning to those who might otherwise be misled by reading Schildt's
> books. It could stand some revision, particularly an update to the
> latest edition of the book.

My preference would be for each entry to state which edition of CTCR it
refers, and for a "Fixed in..." column to be added where appropriate.
That way, the site would serve all those unfortunate enough to have a
copy of CTCR, not just those with the latest edition.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 5:26 pm
From: Richard Heathfield

Bill Reid wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:54 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>> I think the title of Schildt's book invites misplaced criticism.
>> Whilst the book is entitled a "reference" it is in fact a tutorial.
>> The needs of pedagogy and definition are often opposed.
>
> You know, you think and sound a little like "SpinNosey"
> hisself...

No. Malcolm's sentences are coherent, meaningful, and almost invariably
polite. He doesn't always think things through, he's by no means always
right, and I certainly don't always agree with him (in fact, for some
reason I rarely agree with Malcolm), but he's nothing like the moronic
bozo with whom you are endeavouring to compare him.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 5:40 pm
From: Seebs

On 2010-04-04, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> The phrase "in general" is ambiguous; it can mean either "usually" or
> "always". Assuming that "in general" was meant as "usually", he could
> (and IMHO should) have mentioned that other representations exist.

Yes. At the time, I understood "in general" to mean "always" -- now that
I'm aware that it could be used either way, I'd probably phrase such
a criticism differently, although I stand by the substance of it.

>> Whilst I haven't read the book, this is probably spurious as well. The
>> term "global variable" can be used either for file scope variables or
>> variables with external linkage.

> And is therefore ambiguous, and therefore IMHO should be avoided in a
> book that purports to teach C.

Or at least explained, or something.

> In a quick reading, it appears to me that the first two listed errors
> happen to be the least substantial.

Agreed.

>> I don't like libel laws and I think threats of legal action are heavy-
>> handed, and not credible unless they come from the person allegedly
>> libelled himself.

I still don't see the relevance here, except in that it's probably a
reference to the neverending flood of threats of legal action Nilges
seems to generate.

>> I suspect Schildt himself just regards this sort of
>> criticism as the inevitable concomitant of success.

This is true, I think -- and most significantly, *he does not care that
his books are wrong*. Or if he does, he's never admitted it, acknowledged
it, or responded positively to any kind of criticism that I'm aware of.
I did once get a very condescending fax full of badly-argued attempts to
justify his use of "void main". Was it sincere? That he stopped using
it in future books suggests that it was not -- it was offered only to make
the publisher feel like he didn't think he was wrong.

>> The books do very
>> well on the market, and no-one is forced to buy them. However Nilges
>> is actually right, "C the complete nonsense" is a bad webpage and
>> should be either removed or substantially revised.

> I disagree completely. "C: The Complete Nonsense" is a valuable
> warning to those who might otherwise be misled by reading Schildt's
> books. It could stand some revision, particularly an update to the
> latest edition of the book.

The books don't seem to do as well now -- there hasn't been a new edition
for ten years, suggesting that it doesn't sell as well as the previous
ones. Partially, I suspect, because a large number of people now know
that Schildt's writing on C is atrocious.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 7:18 pm
From: Keith Thompson

Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:
> On 2010-04-04, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> The phrase "in general" is ambiguous; it can mean either "usually" or
>> "always". Assuming that "in general" was meant as "usually", he could
>> (and IMHO should) have mentioned that other representations exist.
>
> Yes. At the time, I understood "in general" to mean "always" -- now that
> I'm aware that it could be used either way, I'd probably phrase such
> a criticism differently, although I stand by the substance of it.

As a professional writer, Schildt should certainly be aware of the
ambiguity.

[...]

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Blonde C jokes
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/ad1c486bad884e91?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 3:15 pm
From: Bill Reid

On Apr 4, 2:26 pm, Alexander Bartolich <alexander.bartol...@gmx.at>
wrote:
> Rich Webb wrote:
> > Alexander Bartolich <alexander.bartol...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> "Look" says the manager, "isn't this getting a bit silly? Why does it
> >>> need to compile under all these different systems?"
> >>> "Mr Mannering", she says, "the new computer is in the basement."
>
> >>I don't get this one.
>
> > It's "in the basement" i.e., it will be "under" all of them.
>
> So the hidden assumption is that all these different systems are
> located upstairs. This is not logical. Ruby coders and the like
> might indeed prefer light-flooded lofts. But the story is about
> C++, C89 and Fortran. And everybody knows that real programmers
> are photophobic.
>
Did you hear the joke about programmer comedian? You
didn't miss anything, it wasn't funny...

---
William Ernest Reid

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 9:28 pm
From: "ng2010"

Malcolm McLean wrote:
> A blonde arrives for her first day as a C programmer. She's given a
> simple job, changing a few error messages in a 10,000 line program.
> After about a hour she hands the code back in. The manager compiles
> it

LOL! That is funny!!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: formatting C source code (adding brackets { } to if else )
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/4240700cc68be88c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 4:08 pm
From: tvn

[mod note: removed "alt.comp.lang.c" because my news server doesn't have it.]

Hi,

I am wondering if there's any C src format that can change something
like

if (something)
if(something)
stmt1;
else
stmt2;
else
stmt3;

into

if (something){
if(something){
stmt1;
}
else{
stmt2;
}
}
else{
stmt3;
}

I've looked at several ones such as astyle and gnu indent but they
can't seem to do this. astyle can put brackets {} if but only 1
line
e.g.,

if (isFoo)
isFoo = false;
becomes:

if (isFoo) {
isFoo = false;
}
--
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: clcm@plethora.net -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Personal attacks by moderators in a moderated group are unprofessional
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/fcaffc6b8db42751?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 4:19 pm
From: Moi

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:06:53 +0000, Seebs wrote:

> On 2010-04-04, Dr Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Stick to criticisms of Spinoza1111's views on C programming. There's no
>> point bringing up other, off-topic issues that none of us here can
>> possibly be in a position judge.
>
> Normally, I agree, but in the case of someone with a long history of
> disruption and general internet kookery, legal threats, etcetera, it can
> be important to warn people about the side issues -- many people would
> rather not engage someone with a history of going to employers with
> defamatory claims about people he's argued with on the internet, for
> instance. Similarly, knowing that someone's been impenetrably stupid
> about something for a decade changes, for most people, the expected
> return on time spent trying to educate that person.

Remember that it is basically just you and Richard who take the bait.
Effectively lowering the S/N ratio to under 50%.
Just don't react. It's easy. Ignore it. The amusement value is close to zero
(maybe except for you) and the net effect is hem succeeding in his goal to
destroy this NG, whatever that may be.

AvK

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 4:59 pm
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:19:39 +0200, Moi
<root@invalid.address.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:06:53 +0000, Seebs wrote:
>
>> On 2010-04-04, Dr Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Stick to criticisms of Spinoza1111's views on C programming. There's no
>>> point bringing up other, off-topic issues that none of us here can
>>> possibly be in a position judge.
>>
>> Normally, I agree, but in the case of someone with a long history of
>> disruption and general internet kookery, legal threats, etcetera, it can
>> be important to warn people about the side issues -- many people would
>> rather not engage someone with a history of going to employers with
>> defamatory claims about people he's argued with on the internet, for
>> instance. Similarly, knowing that someone's been impenetrably stupid
>> about something for a decade changes, for most people, the expected
>> return on time spent trying to educate that person.
>
>Remember that it is basically just you and Richard who take the bait.
>Effectively lowering the S/N ratio to under 50%.
>Just don't react. It's easy. Ignore it. The amusement value is close to zero
>(maybe except for you) and the net effect is hem succeeding in his goal to
>destroy this NG, whatever that may be.

Speak for yourself. I find the amusement value rather high.

Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 5:14 pm
From: Julienne Walker

On Apr 4, 5:28 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 4:22 am, Julienne Walker <happyfro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 2:49 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 3, 9:44 pm, Julienne Walker <happyfro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip the usual time vampire of a post from a self important asshole>
>
> > > > > So that's funny? How about blonde jokes? Women driver jokes?
>
> > > > If they're good jokes, yes. I'm not so full of myself that I can't
> > > > appreciate a joke at my expense.
>
> > > We are beyond joking, kiddo. I think McGraw Hill and Schildt should
> > > sue Seebach.
>
> > *I* think you should butt out of their business. It's not your place
> > to provide unsolicited "self-defense" for others, and I strongly doubt
> > Schildt would approve of how you're doing it. Fortunately, he has no
> > need to worry about your dragging his good name through the mud by
> > bringing up old embarrassments. The chances of anyone who might
> > escalate the damage reading your posts (and blogs) are vanishingly
> > small.
>
> In ways that shall remain confidential, I did check, after getting the
> wikipedia biography to conform to wikipedia's "biographies of living
> persons" policies, whether interested parties on the other side of
> this issue cared either way about my participation. I received their
> approval.

Bullshit. I can see it one of two ways:

1) You're a liar and received no such approval. I see this as likely
because you're prone to throw around names as a way to make yourself
seem more credible.

2) You received positive feedback for the Wikipedia edits and took
that to mean approval for ALL of your vindictive escapades.

I'd love to see what Schildt thinks of how you've been championing him
here on clc. Were I him, I'd rush to send you a cease and desist email.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 6:36 pm
From: Seebs

On 2010-04-04, Moi <root@invalid.address.org> wrote:
> Remember that it is basically just you and Richard who take the bait.

I don't think I agree with that -- we may be two of the people most
likely to respond (although I think I've responded to Nilges maybe once
in the last few months), but there are an awful lot of individual
responses.

That said, I am sort of amazed; I recently dekillfiled him just to see
whether he was responsible for the huge gap between articles in group
and unkillfiled articles in group. He is. I have never seen such a
volume of posts. I'm amazed.

But none of them seem to have any semantic content worth noticing, so
I guess that experiment is over.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 7:35 pm
From: Sjouke Burry

Richard Harter wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:19:39 +0200, Moi
> <root@invalid.address.org> wrote:

> Speak for yourself. I find the amusement value rather high.

Here speakes a true troll
Back to your stone bridge please.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 8:22 pm
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:35:09 +0200, Sjouke Burry
<burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

>Richard Harter wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:19:39 +0200, Moi
>> <root@invalid.address.org> wrote:
>
>> Speak for yourself. I find the amusement value rather high.
>
>Here speakes a true troll
>Back to your stone bridge please.

Does your mother know you've been using her laptop again?

Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the Matter of Herb Schildt: a Detailed Analysis of "C: The Complete
Nonsense"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/t/caf17fab4e7d8530?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 5:17 pm
From: John Bode

On Apr 3, 11:54 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-04-04, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 6:39?am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >> As for the page being a response to the
> >> first edition, ISTR that it is actually based on the third edition
> >> (perhaps Seebs would clarify this point?).
> > I don't think he will, for part of reputation destruction is creating
> > confusion.
>
> Which is funny, because I already posted a clear answer to that question
> some hours ago. It is indeed based on the third edition. The second
> had more errors, and I have never seen the first, but I've been told it
> was even worse.
>

I had a copy of the 1st edition; it went into the trash by the end of
the semester. The main problem I had with it was that half of the
examples wouldn't compile, and half of the ones that did compile had
runtime problems. I asked one of my professors if the problem was me
or the book; he agreed that the book was the problem, and, in his
words, that Schildt didn't know the language half as well as he
claimed.

Part of the problem was that the book was *extremely* DOS-centric (I
was working on VMS, so of course CC would bail as soon as it saw
#include <conio.h>), but there were problems beyond that.

Shortly after that I got Harbison & Steele, 2nd edition, and even
though I couldn't immediately understand all of it, it quickly became
my primary reference.

I've thumbed through the 4th edition of C:TCR in bookstores; I haven't
found the kinds of egregious errors that riddled the 1st edition, but
that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "comp.lang.c"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to comp.lang.c+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Monday, April 5, 2010

comp.lang.c - 18 new messages in 5 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts