Asking if elements in struct arre zero

[Programmer Dude]

<pedantry>
you misspelled oops
</pedantry>

Nah, 'twasn't big 'nuf for the "s". :-|

 

[Programmer Dude]

These are all serious attempts to keep this newsgroup useful.

Sure, but they often go beyond that (IMO, obviously) and into the
territory of "Do It My (Our) Way Or Suffer My (Our) Wrath."

I seldom say anything so important that it's going to be worth my
readers' time to wade through clever formatting or insufficient
context to figure out what I'm talking about.

There is a difference between "clever formatting" and people just
trying to communicate as best as they can with the tools they have.

The reality is, outside something that *requires* monospace font
for alignment purposes (such as our source code), formatted text
is *easier* to read. MUCH easier. And HTML is quickly becoming
a de facto standard for representing formatted text. Like it or
not, HTML newsgroups are probably going to be standard before long.

Which I think will--once we get used to it--improve communication
considerably. In company, we have Lotus Notes mail which uses a
(rather sadly drain bamaged) Rich Text Format that allows formatted
mail. I can write much more communicative and illustrative emails
using basic formatting tools.

There is, after all, a very good reason why books and magazines do
not use 80-column, monospace (except for special effect).

Even if I did have something monumental to say, I'd still want to
make it as easy as possible for it to be read.

Which would be via formatted text.

Too many newsgroups have descended into useless chaos. We don't
want to let that happen to comp.lang.c.

I think y'all use that rationale overmuch. Tech groups that lack
the sharp focus on topicality still seem pretty useful to me. For
example, comp.lang.lisp has about the same traffic, but lacks the
style.cops and topic.cops. Far as I can tell, the groups are about
the same--very, VERY useful in their language domain.

We're here to talk about C. Anyone who's more interested in
showing off how unconventional they are, or how creatively they
can format their text, should probably consider finding someplace
else to do it.

I'd agree. How about someone with genuine interest in C who just
happens to believe in HTML and top posting and--outside that--makes
very intelligent, readable posts?

 

[Programmer Dude]

[If you haven't read the post I just made a little bit upthread,
go read it now and come back to this one.]

Without a date or reference, I have no idea WHICH post you mean.

You're really prepared to claim that Ruth's conduct was acceptable,
and that the other people sitting at the table were wrong to object
to it?

I think there's plenty of wrong to spread around on both sides.
Plenty of right, too.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

How do you know? Do you really know my world?

 

[Programmer Dude]

Basically my take on it is that there _was_ a newsgroup for
all people to discuss the C language, and it's been ruined.

Oh, I would disagree. For "C-only" questions, this group is
unparalleled. You just have to understand the focus.

What boggles the mind is even after I pointed out all these
things, they continue to exhibit no self-awareness and
demonstrate the same close-minded tendencies, like in the
interview question thread.

Do you really believe you can illuminate, educate or enlighten
people on amUSENET? Wanna buy a bridge? (-:

But knowledge of the C language standard doesn't necessarily
imply success at building real systems.

No, but you will find professional working programmers here a
plenty with many successful real systems to their credit. If
you're interested in C, don't let the social behavior poison
the well. Even though the water sometimes has a rank smell,
it's actually pretty good water.

 

[Programmer Dude]

[....ssssssssssNIP!]
About five minutes after that result came up, somebody who had been
listening to us spoke up and said "Hi, I'm Ruth. Is the ability to
use a null space of an arbitrary order a recent development? I
haven't heard of it before."

Nice polite question.

After a few minutes of collective "Huh?"-type confusion, Rick [...]
realized that the question was referring to the discussion of [five
minutes ago], and [answered].

A nice polite answer. Had it stopped there, no shouting.

He (Rick) also told Ruth that, since the discussion tends to jump
around quite a bit (and there's often more than one discussion
going on at the same time), it's a good idea for people who are
returning to something that had been discussed before to remind us
of what we had said that was relevant to their question or comment.

Ruth didn't seem to like that last bit much....

A *great* deal would depend on Rick's presentation, since he was
now in the position of commenting on someone's public behavior.
And he would have the advantage of facial and tonal cues, but you
still have to tread carefully when attempting to exert your will
on someone else.

Try Ruth's shoes for a moment. Upon approaching a new group, she
is immediately told she's doing wrong. In front of an audience.
At the very *least* I would suggest not doing that in front of an
audience. Even Westerners have a sense of saving face.

MAYBE it would have served everyone's purpose better if Rick just
let Ruth have her answer and allowed her to--if she stayed around--
learn the group dynamics in her own time.

 

[Noah Roberts]

There is a difference between "clever formatting" and people just
trying to communicate as best as they can with the tools they have.

Good point. I am going to start using Abiword to post my articles,
those that use a newsreader that doesn't know how to deal with the
formatting markup will just have to wade through it. I figure those
lame enough to use a text only newsreader in a text based protocol
deserve what they get.

 

[Noah Roberts]

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE abiword PUBLIC "-//ABISOURCE//DTD AWML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.abisource.com/awml.dtd">
<abiword xmlns="http://www.abisource.com/awml.dtd"
xmlns:awml="http://www.abisource.com/awml.dtd"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format"
xmlns:math="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="1.0.1"
fileformat="1.0" styles="unlocked">
<!--
===================================================================== -->
<!-- This file is an AbiWord document.
-->
<!-- AbiWord is a free, Open Source word processor.
-->
<!-- You may obtain more information about AbiWord at www.abisource.com
-->
<!-- You should not edit this file by hand.
-->
<!--
===================================================================== -->

<styles>
<s type="P" name="Normal" basedon="" followedby="Current Settings"
props="font-family:Times New Roman; margin-top:0pt; font-variant:normal;
margin-left:0pt; text-indent:0in; widows:2; font-style:normal;
font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none; color:000000; line-height:1.0;
text-align:left; margin-bottom:0pt; text-position:normal;
margin-right:0pt; bgcolor:transparent; font-size:12pt;
font-stretch:normal"/>
</styles>
<pagesize pagetype="Letter" orientation="portrait" width="8.500000"
height="11.000000" units="in" page-scale="1.000000"/>
<section>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">I am just posting this so you
can see how truly awful it would be.</c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US"></c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">When you post HTML to newsgroups
this is often what it looks like on the other side.</c></p>
</section>
</abiword>


BTW, in case you can't find the actual text of the message (oh gee, why
not?) this is what it says:

I am just posting this so you can see how truly awful it would be.

When you post HTML to newsgroups this is often what it looks like on the
other side.

 

[Programmer Dude]

<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">I am just posting this so
you can see how truly awful it would be.</c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US"></c></p>
<p style="Normal"><c props="lang:en-US">When you post HTML to
newsgroups this is often what it looks like on the other
side.</c></p>

Fascinating. No problem reading, BTW. If I wanted to view it in
fully formatted, I could dump it into a wide variety of things that
can display HTML.

No problem.

When you post HTML to newsgroups this is often what it looks like
on the other side.

So get out of the dark ages and get something that can render HTML.
I suspect it's going to be like HD tv. Eventually, the choice will
not be yours.

<borg>You <strong>WILL</strong> be assimilated</borg>

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

The reality is, outside something that *requires* monospace font
for alignment purposes (such as our source code), formatted text
is *easier* to read. MUCH easier. And HTML is quickly becoming
a de facto standard for representing formatted text. Like it or
not, HTML newsgroups are probably going to be standard before long.

That would simply open the door to script kiddies and other evil
types, and spell the death of using newsgroups at all. With pure
text you KNOW you cannot be attacked.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Sure, but they often go beyond that (IMO, obviously) and into the
territory of "Do It My (Our) Way Or Suffer My (Our) Wrath."


There is a difference between "clever formatting" and people just
trying to communicate as best as they can with the tools they have.

The reality is, outside something that *requires* monospace font
for alignment purposes (such as our source code), formatted text
is *easier* to read. MUCH easier. And HTML is quickly becoming
a de facto standard for representing formatted text. Like it or
not, HTML newsgroups are probably going to be standard before long.

HTML has not become a de facto standard on Usenet.

The newsreader I use does not render HTML. (Actually, there might be
a way to tell it to do so, but I haven't looked into it; in any case,
many other newsreaders in common use cannot render HTML at all.) I
run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width font.
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this newsgroup
are in the same position.

I suppose there's a standard for HTML Usenet postings (there seems to
be one for e-mail, and the message formats are very close), but I
rarely see any. If I did, I probably wouldn't bother to decode them.

[...]

Which would be via formatted text.

Not for most Usenet readers, and certainly not for most readers of
comp.lang.c.

[...]

I'd agree. How about someone with genuine interest in C who just
happens to believe in HTML and top posting and--outside that--makes
very intelligent, readable posts?

I don't believe I've seen any examples of that.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Noah Roberts wrote:




Fascinating. No problem reading, BTW. If I wanted to view it in
fully formatted, I could dump it into a wide variety of things that
can display HTML.

No problem.




So get out of the dark ages and get something that can render HTML.
I suspect it's going to be like HD tv. Eventually, the choice will
not be yours.

<borg>You <strong>WILL</strong> be assimilated</borg>

*plonk*

 

[Noah Roberts]

HTML has not become a de facto standard on Usenet.

The newsreader I use does not render HTML. (Actually, there might be
a way to tell it to do so, but I haven't looked into it; in any case,
many other newsreaders in common use cannot render HTML at all.) I
run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width font.
I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this newsgroup
are in the same position.

Mine will display HTML but I have told it explicitly not to. I used to
be in XFree86's support team and we would get html messages a lot. When
I was using a reader that was able to read these messages often times
the font was not on my system and would be replaced by something
rediculously small. Toss, into trash, learn to use text dork!

I stopped using that email reader. Most of the HTML messages became
readable after that because most clients adhere to MIME standard and
send in text and HTML. Those that did not would show up looking very
similar to my Abiword post and again - toss, into trash, learn to use
text dork!

There is 0 reason to use HTML, or any markup language, when
communicating through email or usenet. I think most people here
probably view their messages in fixed width font so that little argument
is pointless. If you insist on forcing your font and formatting choices
on me I will simply killfile you. Life is too precious to waste it on
such stupidity.

 

[goose]

But what if you were to start dispensing language advice? If you were in
every regular contributor's killfile, who would correct your errors?

us unfortunate readers who have to use google to read news.

then *you* can read *my* message and correct *my* errors made
while correcting *his* errors

goose,
still no proper ISP, sadly ...

 

[goose]

Weird, since at first I thought you were _definitely_ smarter than Mr. Hu or
Mr. McIntyre. I'm usually a pretty good judge of character at first.

stop being everyones whipping post sonnyboy ... find something else
to get off on and get on with it.

goose,
next post will be in swahili, right ?

 

[Default User]

Try Ruth's shoes for a moment. Upon approaching a new group, she
is immediately told she's doing wrong. In front of an audience.
At the very *least* I would suggest not doing that in front of an
audience. Even Westerners have a sense of saving face.

That's too bad. Corrective posts are the best, because they not only
inform the offender but others.

Besides, most of us don't have to imagine it. We all generally screwed
up at some time on some newsgroup. My first post here was off-topic
(asked about editors).



Brian Rodenborn

 

[Programmer Dude]

That would simply open the door to script kiddies and other evil
types, and spell the death of using newsgroups at all.

Nonsense. Nothing in HTML itself can harm you. It's trivially

With pure text you KNOW you cannot be attacked.

An HTML document *IS* pure text.

 

[Programmer Dude]

HTML has not become a de facto standard on Usenet.

Did I say it had? Consider the words quoted above. Particularly
the "before long" and "probably" words. Consider also the difference
between "for representing text" and "on Usenet".

The newsreader I use does not render HTML.

There are plenty that do. Some are even free.

I run it under an 80-column terminal emulator with a fixed-width
font.

How quaint. Thinking of joining the new millenium anytime soon?

I'm certain that many, perhaps most, of the regulars on this
newsgroup are in the same position.

Of using inefficient, ancient tools? That's too bad!!

Not for most Usenet readers, and certainly not for most readers of
comp.lang.c.

Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.

What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to ancient
systems whose day is long, long past.

I don't believe I've seen any examples of that.

Maybe if you opened your mind a little more you might be surprised.

 

[Programmer Dude]

That's too bad. Corrective posts are the best, because they not
only inform the offender but others.

Certainly. And in a newsgroup or mailing list, the loss of face
isn't significant. (I was addressing Vandervies' story about Ruth.)

Still, as I said to Dave, "A *great* deal would depend on Rick's
presentation, since he was now in the position of commenting on
someone's public behavior."

THAT applies here as well. There's corrective posts, and there's
flammage. A gentle corrective post to a newbie is a fine thing.

What bothers me *most* is the lack of tolerance shown for those
with other ideas. If a poster is *clearly* a troll or agitator,
fine, have at'm. The problem is the tendancy to lump those with
different opinions into the Troll Box.

"He doesn't agree with me/us, so he must be a Troll."

No small town is more insular or more intolerant than this group.
In fact, "Small Town" is an excellent metaphor for this (and many
other) newsgroup(s) on many counts.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

There are plenty that do. Some are even free.

But the one he has chosen to use does not. That's /his/ choice.

How quaint. Thinking of joining the new millenium anytime soon?

Thinking of conceding other people's right to use the software /they/ want
to use anytime soon?

Of using inefficient, ancient tools? That's too bad!!

I find nothing terribly inefficient about a fixed-pitch display. In fact, I
find it very easy to read, especially for source code. On this newsgroup,
we see a /lot/ of source code, some of it so badly formatted that it looks
pretty horrible even in fixed-pitch. I'd hate to think what it would look
like in a proportional font.

As for ancientiosity, I see no reason why a tool should be abandoned just
because it's getting on a bit. Do you still use wheels? Fire? Or are they
too old-fashioned now?

Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,

Where did Keith Thompson mention such a desire? Quote the message ID,
please.

the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.

It is. See above.

What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to ancient
systems whose day is long, long past.

Who is to judge whether a system's day is long, long past? You? Bill Gates?

Each of us is perfectly capable of deciding which software he or she wants
to use.

Maybe if you opened your mind a little more you might be surprised.

Our minds should indeed be open - but not gaping. I don't think Keith
Thompson is a particularly credulous person.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Did I say it had? Consider the words quoted above. Particularly
the "before long" and "probably" words. Consider also the difference
between "for representing text" and "on Usenet".

It is my sincere hope that HTML newsgroups do not become standard any
time soon. I prefer plain text, as do many other people. If you want
the web, you know where to find it.

There are plenty that do. Some are even free.

That's nice. I don't *want* my newsreader to render HTML. (Actually,
I think it does; I'm glad to say that it rarely has to.)

How quaint. Thinking of joining the new millenium anytime soon?

No, I like the third one just fine.

Of using inefficient, ancient tools? That's too bad!!


Your desire to remain in the era of buggy whips not withstanding,
the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.

I have no problem reading fixed-width text. For much of what I read,
including C source code, formatted text would be more difficult to
read. A variable-width font might be easier to read for running
English text like this, but the drawbacks would greatly outweigh the
benefits.

What is, perhaps, in dispute is the value of hanging on to ancient
systems whose day is long, long past.

So if we all do things the way you want us to, we'll all be just fine,
right?

The tools you advocate are newer, flashier, and more complex. That
doesn't make them better for this specific purpose.

Maybe if you opened your mind a little more you might be surprised.

Perhaps you can provide some concrete examples? I don't think I've
ever seen an HTML posting in comp.lang.c, other than one or two
examples during this discussion. As for top-posting, those who do it
here repeatedly tend to be trolling rather than actually discussing C.

Nice sig block, but it doesn't look very good in a variable-width
font, does it?