Yes, Nilges prides himself on accurate writing (or should that be
righting?). However his failure to understand that a statement of the
form 'a is a b' does not exclude 'a is a c' suggests that his reading
skills need a bit of honing.
Let's see if that's true.
In addition there is a considerable difference between a possibly
thoughtless statement in a newsgroup which is easy to correct (and yes,
we (in this newsgroup) all know that 'heap' is used in many other
contexts including other computer OSs) and enshrining a miss-statement
in a published book.
Hold it right there. Seebie's statement (the 'heap' is a DOS term) was
not like Richard Heathfield's claim that he did not find "spinoza1111"
in comp.risks, meant I believe as a malicious lie but in a newsgroup
where we don't always review what we say, and we can undo damage done
by apology (although Richard has not apologized for his malicious
lie).
"C: the Complete Nonsense" was an Internet publication with its own
Web site that is readily found by Google. Seebie allowed it to stand
even after its mistakes were criticised whereas in newsgroups people
can retract what they say. Because bubble butts and aliterates can so
readily find it, it is far more influential than a book could ever be.
Furthermore, Clive Feather effectively gave it certification when he
based a similarly written post citing it, and it's likely that
Feather's cite gave the first post its viral "authority".
Now I have had the misfortune to review several of Schildt's books on
both C and C++ (and in at least one he managed to confuse the two, and
As sensibly distinct languages, they are hopelessly and incestuously
intertwined in a way that we see right here is not sensibly
explainable; most answers to noob questions degenerate into claims and
counterclaims amongst the regs. One of the reasons for the brutal but
explainable syntax and semantics of Fortran I, and the elegance of the
Algol Report, was that both Backus and the Algol team knew that great
engineering is simple engineering...but not simpler than necessary. It
can be described sensibly.
his C++ code is definitely poor and not an example to be followed, but I
know of at least one author who was seriously worse). I would be
Who?
reluctant to even attempt to list all the errors in any one of his books
"Errors in books" is Fundamentalist language. It makes sense only when
talking about books that describe an independent scientific or
historical phenomenon, such as a falsehood in a math book or the claim
that FDR dropped the atom bomb which did appear in a Texas school
book.
The consistent illusion here, one which makes real scientists laugh
when they learn of it, is that a social, human artifact such as C in
actual use, is independent and to be spoken of as part of nature. What
you call "errors" are in fact Schildt's bold attempt to make sense of
a mess for real people, and in a self-contradictory fashion, nearly
all of Schildt's critics call him "clear", not knowing that "clarity"
logically implies truth.
Because C is a mess, it is impossible in general and for real
compilers to make universal and sensible predictions of its behavior
true in all cases. For example, the final "truth" about certain
pathological uses of post-increment is Heisenbergian and useless in
practice, for Seebie wants us to all say "undefined" like Killer
Zombies from Space...when, in fact, most compilers allow the
pathological case and execute it in some very well-defined way, and
maintenance programmers who come upon pathology that can't be removed
without breaking something else need to know how the pathological case
works.
The problem isn't Herb.
because they were so pervasive (rather less in his more recent works so
perhaps he does take notice) that errors only went to demonstrate the
inadequacy of his understanding of C. Like every reviewer, my work is my
opinion. If a theatre critic slates a play he is not generally liable
for libel. However if he makes personal comments about the playwright,
producer, actors etc. that is a different matter.
"Bullschildt" is the smoking gun here, for he's saying of a respected
individual with standing in his community and a family name being
assaulted that that individual can be expected to write bullshit. Note
that theater and movie critics do NOT do this! They do NOT make
predictions, as the anti-Schildt creeps do with respect to Schildt and
mine own enemies do about me, about our future output.
Remember Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert? Did you ever hear them say about
a director that "he" is a jerk who cannot make a good movie? Rarely if
ever: instead, they say anything they like about the MOVIE, the one
particular production. This is for a very good reason, as you indicate
above: fear of a libel lawsuit.
You see, adults, as opposed to people working in fields for which they
are unprepared and people who've worked for a succession of "banks and
insurance companies" without acquiring the maturity to know when he's
making a malicious lie, can differentiate between criticism of the
work, and criticism of the *auteur*. They are not corporate droids who
have learned to criticise and back-stab coworkers and people on the
Internet behind their backs because they are too cowardly not to be
worked to death by the corporation.
Amazon was in its infancy when "C: The Complete Nonsense" was
published, but Seebach could have penned a review which did not even
mention the author in order to avoid his implication that Schildt is
"always" wrong. He did not. As a result, this meme went viral and
became the common "knowledge" of C programmers too lazy and
incompetent to think, and the answer to a FAQ, and Seebach didn't have
the common decency to stop this process.
A comparison between what Peter, Richard and I have written about one or
more books by Schildt with what you have repeatedly said about Peter and
Richard should make the point. Any one of us can be guilty of making
mistakes or miss-speaking but that does not make us liars, conspirators
or incompetent. If anyone took you seriously Peter would have a rock
solid case against you for libel as you have repeatedly impugned his
professional competence in ways that could damage his reputation and career.
The situation here is different.
I had a friend who was foully mistreated by Richard Heathfield's
publisher, SAMs. She set up a Web site criticising SAMs. SAMs sued her
under Chicago municipal laws concerning phone harassment.
Although I think SAMs treated this person like shit both in the
initial employment relationship and the lawsuit, I think she made a
mistake by creating a Web site for the same reason I think Seebach's
standalone post was a vicious mistake.
What I say about Heathfield is self-defense in a dialogue in which he
mobilizes what I think is his stupidity and lack of education, and
enables others to participate in cybernetic lynch mobs, and I am by no
means the only person to be subject to his bullying. And unlike Siskel
and Ebert, I do indeed make reality-based predictions and
generalizations about him.
But these predictions are justified and verified. I knew he was a yob
wayback in 2000 when he reacted in a infantile manner to being
sidelined by his lack of education in a well-received discussion I
triggered on programmers as professionals, and thereafter lost no
opportunity to enable mob actions, as when I used an invariant
expression in a for loop (a vastly less significant and predictive-of-
incompetence error than saying "the 'heap' is a DOS term" or ".Net
code is interpreted", to cite two of Seebie's gems, or
"comp.programming is not about programmers" or "Nilges isn't in
comp.risks" to cite Heathfield).
The predictions were in dialogues in which Heathfield and Seebie
fought dirty and spoke outside their narrow areas of competence.
Whereas to create a Web site assaulting Herb, apparently hold McGraw
Hill to ransom, and not seriously try to involve him in a dialog (try
picking up the phone during business hours) smacks of civilly and
criminally actionable conduct.
