C: The Complete Meta-Nonsense

[John Kelly]

You're almost always spamming, and you're almost always off-topic.

I can see that most of the traffic here is about the nuances of C. But
is that the only reasonable use of this ng? Do you believe there's not
even one reader interested in dh?

Occasionally posting a link to it, say a few times per year, shouldn't
bother anyone. If only you could get Seebs to shutup and leave it
alone. He seems obsessed with it. Or with me, I'm not sure which.

 

[Seebs]

I can see that most of the traffic here is about the nuances of C. But
is that the only reasonable use of this ng?

It's the listed topic.

Do you believe there's not
even one reader interested in dh?

Actually, yes. I have seen nothing to suggest that your program will ever
be of use to any person who is not you. Interestingly, I've said that
before, and you've not chosen to prove me wrong by claiming that you
have a user, suggesting that you don't know of any either.

Since I've identified fundamental mistakes that would make your program
useless to most people, and since several systems already have one of these
as a standard tool, my guess is that, in fact, there is not even one reader
interested in yours -- especially given your publically displayed attitude.

Occasionally posting a link to it, say a few times per year, shouldn't
bother anyone.

There are several million people out there working on things which use a
C compiler but are specific to a particular system. If they all posted links
even once a year, the group would be completely unusable. There is nothing
on the table to suggest that your program is more deserving of attention
than the others.

If only you could get Seebs to shutup and leave it
alone. He seems obsessed with it. Or with me, I'm not sure which.

I have a very high tolerance for correcting the same mistakes over
and over.

-s

 

[John Kelly]

I have a very high tolerance for correcting the same mistakes over
and over.

Well at least you're not a psychiatrist. A psychologist suffering from
OCD is pitiable. A crazy psychiatrist would be truly dangerous.

 

[Seebs]

Well at least you're not a psychiatrist. A psychologist suffering from
OCD is pitiable. A crazy psychiatrist would be truly dangerous.

You don't seem to understand the differences between these as well as you
think you do.

In any event, it's not OCD, it's autism. Very different, even though both
can involve apparently unreasonable patience for repeating corrections.

-s

 

[John Kelly]

In any event, it's not OCD, it's autism.

If that's true, a strong need for sameness may explain your reaction to
dh. Maybe you didn't give it a fair trial.

dh -m -- 022

will start a program that has the name 022.

 

[Seebs]

If that's true, a strong need for sameness may explain your reaction to
dh. Maybe you didn't give it a fair trial.

As noted, I've had programs like this on some systems I use for over a
decade, and I don't even know which ones, because I've had call to use them
about twice in that period. They work fine, yours is dodgy at best.

-s

 

[John Kelly]

As noted, I've had programs like this on some systems I use for over a
decade, and I don't even know which ones, because I've had call to use them
about twice in that period. They work fine, yours is dodgy at best.

If you don't need it, ignore it. Debian may even survive. I'm not the
only one using it. When you see posts about it, ignore them. Be happy.
I am.

 

[Seebs]

If you don't need it, ignore it.

Ahh, but that brings us back to the foundational issue:

You're posting off-topic ads for your software in a newsgroup to which it
isn't relevant.

Debian may even survive.

Er, whatever.

I'm not the only one using it.

Actually, so far as anyone can tell, you are. Everyone who needed one of
these got the already-existing ones a decade or so back.

Be happy. I am.

Obviously not -- your compulsive advertisements and your freakouts when people
pointed out easily-fixed problems suggest that you are, in fact, permanently
unhappy. As long as you view any disagreement as an "attack", you will never
really be happy.

-s

 

[John Kelly]

Obviously not -- your compulsive advertisements and your freakouts when people
pointed out easily-fixed problems suggest that you are, in fact, permanently
unhappy. As long as you view any disagreement as an "attack", you will never
really be happy.

Thank you, Dr. Seebs. But time flies. I must go now.

 

[spinoza1111]

Funny that anyone who purports to be an author and editor can be so
cavalier about slander and libel.  Certain jurisdictions in the US take
it seriously, nowadays to the point of penetrating online anonymity.

I am not anonymous, so no sweat there. And I'm claiming that Seebach
libeled Schildt. If I make the accusation and it is true, it is not
libel unless it is made maliciously to harm Seebach. No such intent
exists, and this is shown by the fact that I've been reasonably
courteous to him, especially prior to the point where he made his
ridiculous (and libelous) accusation that I was a nut job because I
didn't agree with him, and also by the fact that I've repeatedly, and
most constructively, encouraged Seebach to rectify his error, and
remove C: The Complete Nonsense.

If one cannot say in defense of x that y libeled x, if this is a
libelous statement, then a charge of libel could not be made and this
isn't the intent of the law.

Therefore, the issue comes down to whether Seebach libeled Schildt.

Schildt is most probably not a "public figure" under US libel law,
therefore strict tests apply to what Seebach has said. If Seebach, in
"C: the Complete Nonsense" posted malicious falsehoods, this would be
a clear case of libel. I believe he did, because he described as
"currently known" 20 issues which weren't mistakes or bugs in example
code for the most part, but matters of phrasing.

I believe Seebach did so maliciously with intent to harm Schildt, in
view of his behavior here with other individuals including the dh code
author. He seems to have a track record of speaking maliciously on
technical matters which he isn't qualified to address, not having
taken a single computer science class and not, apparently, holding
down a real programming job.

If we involve Heathfield, the far stricter, vis a vis the defendant,
law of libel of the UK applies, and here it will be discovered, should
it come to trial, that Heathfield is massively guilty of malicious
statements, falsehoods, and malicious falsehoods directed at many
people.

If these people pool their resources they may well be able to cleanse
this ng of Heathfield's influence, and if it emerges that Heathfield
is being paid, the shit will hit the fan.

 

[spinoza1111]

Okay, this is from memory and it was like thirteen years ago, so I
could have it wrong, but the sequence of events, as I recall, was roughly:

1.  Notice many errors described on Usenet.
2.  Find spectacular examples (e.g., "if (x<>1)") in a coworker's copy.

That's not a "spectacular" error. It is a typo which is pretty
obviously fixable by a competent programmer (eg. one who knows > 1
language and isn't autistic), and it may have been a feature of an old
C compiler to support the idiom.

3.  Check current ed in bookstore, find many errors remaining.
4.  Write McGraw Hill to complain.
5.  Get answer back offering small honorarium for a tech review.
6.  Send them a note saying that it would cost more than that.  (An error
on my part, because I didn't understand publishing at all.)

A ransom note, in other words.

7.  Get a fax from them, containing a forwarded fax from Schildt, containing
two pages or so of standard quotes and poor arguments defending "void main".
8.  Decide to just go ahead and write stuff up.

Instead of contacting Schildt.

Schildt presumably has some kind of email and web access.  It's been trivial
to contact me, and it's not as though I've never had people write me to tell
me about errors on my web pages.

Perhaps he regards you as a nutjob, so perhaps you should be more
careful in future about referring to colleagues and fellow Apress-
published authors as nutjobs. It looks bad, Peter. Real bad.

But it's of particular note that I had confirmation in hand that Schildt
was unwilling to correct at least one error, but that his "answers" to the
charges were full of crap.  (Note:  I have no clue whether I still have

For a person who has never taken a comp sci class, you have a lot of
nerve using toilet language. I could understand a Watson or a Crick
using "crap" to describe objections to their discovery of DNA, but you
weren't qualified then or are you now to airily dismiss Schildt's
respectful reply, and McGraw Hill's respectful offer, with infantile
language.

Have you confused yourself with your father, sir? For just growing up
in a professor's house with lots of books does NOT qualify you to
mount an attack on the use of language to teach C programming.

Finding a locution which is also flagged as an error by modern C
compilers does NOT constitute finding bugs at all. Unfortunately for
your case, even the true bugs you have found are compiler-detectable
which means they were not bugs, any more than the way Herb described
runtime was a bug. They are typos and errata which creep naturally
into longer programming books.

What bothered you was Herb's Microsoft focus.

 

[Richard Tobin]

In any event, it's not OCD, it's autism. Very different, even though both
can involve apparently unreasonable patience for repeating corrections.

Can they be differentiated by an enthusiasm for terrible puns?

-- Richard

 

[Seebs]

Can they be differentiated by an enthusiasm for terrible puns?

No. One of my friends has OCD, and also likes terrible puns.

-s

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

s> And I'm claiming that Seebach libeled Schildt. If I make the
s> accusation and it is true, it is not libel unless it is made
s> maliciously to harm Seebach.

In the United States, truth is an absolute defense against libel. Mr
Seebach pointed out errors of fact in Mr Schildt's work; such errors can
easily be verified by comparing Mr Schildt's work to the C Standard.

s> Therefore, the issue comes down to whether Seebach libeled
s> Schildt.

Indeed. And as truth is an absolute defense, he did not.

(Further, Mr Schildt would have to show that Mr Seebach's commentary on
his work was the proximate cause of the damage to his reputation;
however, since his reputation is the result of his shoddy work on C, Mr
Seebach's commentary serves only to reinforce his reputation.)

Charlton

 

[Kenny McCormack]

(There are so many errors of fact and assumption in this post, but it is
not worth my time to go one-by-one on them. I think anyone with a lick
of sense can see it.)

 

[spinoza1111]

    s> And I'm claiming that Seebach libeled Schildt. If I make the
    s> accusation and it is true, it is not libel unless it is made
    s> maliciously to harm Seebach.

In the United States, truth is an absolute defense against libel.  Mr

No, it's not. A private person retains a higher right of privacy under
the reserved rights clause of the bill of rights.

Seebach pointed out errors of fact in Mr Schildt's work; such errors can

The courts take a dim view of mere machine tenders when mere clerks
and machine tenders claim to know "the truth". But sure, let's put
Richard Heathfield on the stand. That'll be a laugh.

easily be verified by comparing Mr Schildt's work to the C Standard.

    s> Therefore, the issue comes down to whether Seebach libeled
    s> Schildt.

Indeed.  And as truth is an absolute defense, he did not.

Well, the truth that the courts will discover is that a bunch of geeks
with entirely too much time on their hands got a hair up their ass
over the "truth" of a completely outdated language, like a bunch of
trainspotters. It may also discover that their behavior was enabled by
a Limey bastard being paid to stir up trouble. Hopefully it will then
use its contempt powers to jail the lot of you bastards.

(Further, Mr Schildt would have to show that Mr Seebach's commentary on
his work was the proximate cause of the damage to his reputation;

Wow, we found a big word...

however, since his reputation is the result of his shoddy work on C, Mr

McGraw Hill's lawyers alone would make mincemeat of that claim.

 

[David Thompson]

On 2009-11-03, spinoza1111 <[email protected]> wrote:

'VAX' was not case-sensitive. More precisely, VMS, the operating
system DEC designed for VAX, had upper-case filenames, and its
successor OpenVMS which runs on other hardware still does. The other
major OS later used on VAX, a variant of Unix named Ultrix, did have
bothcase filesystem, as Unix must. (Although DEC materials called it
Ultrix and ULTRIX pretty much interchangeably!)

Similarly 'PC' was really MS-DOS and PC-DOS, not PC as such; there
were fairly quickly Unix-like systems for PC hardware.

Unix-and-variants and Macintosh were IMO the primary forces in
spreading bothcase usage.

While that might make a great sidebar, the fact is that using names
that aren't in the canonical forms, and never mentioning that they won't
work, is indubitably worse than just using names in the correct forms.

(For the standard headers.) Concur.

And if there is also a section(s) discussing *user* header files --
which I hope there is, although I don't have the book and am not going
to get it to check such a point as this -- *that* would be a fine
place to at least mention that there are system-dependent limitations
on what filenames can be used -- and for that matter, on how
#include's are searched for. And *maybe* go into details, but that's a
tradeoff against other things the author could reasonably want.

 

[John Bode]

[snip]

Well, the truth that the courts will discover is that a bunch of geeks
with entirely too much time on their hands got a hair up their ass
over the "truth" of a completely outdated language, like a bunch of
trainspotters. It may also discover that their behavior was enabled by
a Limey bastard being paid to stir up trouble. Hopefully it will then
use its contempt powers to jail the lot of you bastards.

Are you saying that truth is relative when it comes to technical
documents? Schildt released the first edition of C:TCR while C was
still current for application development. He got basic facts wrong.
He taught bad habits. Programmers who learned the language from his
book copied those errors and bad habits into production code,
resulting in buggy, low-quality software.

That's why his references are generally not recommended by anyone who
actually knows the language. Schildt caused real harm to the
industry. I'm convinced that the popularity of his books and the
generally abysmal quality of C code written in the '90s are
correlated. He's not alone in this by any means (90% of all C
references are crap), but he's the most well-known.

Elsethread I asked if you would defend the author of an electronics
text who confused capacitance with inductance and you gave a somewhat
rambling answer that I interpreted to be "no", but maybe I was wrong.
The mistakes in Schildt's book are of a similar magnitude, and Seebach
was right to point them out and call them "nonsense". That's not
libel, that's a public service.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

troll> No, it's not. A private person retains a higher right of
troll> privacy under the reserved rights clause of the bill of
troll> rights.

Which, while true, is completely irrelevant to the matter of libel.

To succeed in a libel case, the plaintiff must prove that, among other
things, the statements made were false. Since the statements made were,
in fact, true, then Mr Schildt has no grounds for a libel suit.

I understand that you have a deep and abiding admiration for Mr Schildt
and little but contempt for the C standard, but that in itself is not
enough to make any statement critical of Mr Schildt's work libelous.

Charlton

 

[spinoza1111]

[snip]

Well, the truth that the courts will discover is that a bunch of geeks
with entirely too much time on their hands got a hair up their ass
over the "truth" of a completely outdated language, like a bunch of
trainspotters. It may also discover that their behavior was enabled by
a Limey bastard being paid to stir up trouble. Hopefully it will then
use its contempt powers to jail the lot of you bastards.

Are you saying that truth is relative when it comes to technical

Yes. Technical "realities" aren't unreal, but they are the product of
human interaction, not cast in concrete, and in many cases they are
figures of speech and metaphor. Many of the objections to Schildt's
choices are based on technical folklore and are predictions, based on
no evidence, as to what program maintainers will find understandable,
where what they will find understandable has an overlarge standard
deviation to be controllable by any one style in a language like C.

The problem is C, not Schildt. It is a series of compounded mistakes.

documents?  Schildt released the first edition of C:TCR while C was
still current for application development.  He got basic facts wrong.

There's no such thing as a basic fact in computer science, any more
than there is in mathematics, because a "fact" is empirically
observed.

He taught bad habits.  Programmers who learned the language from his

Programmers DEVELOPED "good habits" in the 1960s in the teeth of
management resistance, management ignorance, management insistence on
a metaphorical "speed". These "habits" generally downplayed the speed
of computation for its correctness: they included structured and
literate programming.

It is a little known but genuine fact that part of the impetus for
this quiet reform came from the socialistic countries of Scandinavia
and Holland. Dijkstra was Dutch, Nygaard and Stroustrup Danish, and
Tom Gilb (an enthusiastic supporter of worker control of production as
a way to data processing quality) Norwegian.

None of these men were concerned with "habits" in the sense of
behavioristically wanting to change "habits".

Schildt taught things that worked on PC platforms which were his
focus. He may have been narrowly focused but this was an attribute of
a genre of computer books whose customer basis did not like, did not
comprehend, and would not recommend K & R style books.

book copied those errors and bad habits into production code,
resulting in buggy, low-quality software.

That's why his references are generally not recommended by anyone who
actually knows the language.  Schildt caused real harm to the

This is utter nonsense.

industry. I'm convinced that the popularity of his books and the

It's not an industry. It's a form of welfare for white males, as it is
practised in developed countries.

generally abysmal quality of C code written in the '90s are
correlated.  He's not alone in this by any means (90% of all C
references are crap), but he's the most well-known.

Elsethread I asked if you would defend the author of an electronics
text who confused capacitance with inductance and you gave a somewhat
rambling answer that I interpreted to be "no", but maybe I was wrong.

Schildt made no such equivalent error. Instead, he failed to speak of
things the way you wanted.