Re: The worst 'hello world' example ever written...

[Alexander Terekhov]

The_Sage wrote:
[...]

Then your point is moot, since you were wrong about void main() being illegal.
And I don't see MS or IBM on your "partially conforming" list either.

^^^

IBM Japan? Well, yeah,

http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/c8888480.pdf
(see "main()..." 'tzang-tzing' (oder?) Pg "216 of 526")

As for the REST of the universe (known as "more upgrade
friendly Galaxies than Japan"),

http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/cbclr110.pdf
(see "The main() Function")

http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/c0948150.pdf
(see "The main() Function")

http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/c0949570.pdf
(see "The main() Function")

http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/c0976370.pdf
(see "The main() Function")

regards,
alexander.

 

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

Don't get me wrong...

[snip]

You did get me wrong.
You whine about TS 'keeps getting people to respond .. in massive
threads' and yet you are one of the responders with the longest
and massivest replies.

Did you see the smile?

 

[David B. Held]

David B. Held wrote:
[SNIP]

Am I the only one that gets the impression that Atilla is a younger
poster?

Still being offended by being reminded that the ANSI C++ standard
does not include all the ANSI standards?

No, because I never suggested such a thing. You're the one that
made that claim for me, which is fairly rude.

Get over it.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder. You just seem to act immature
sometimes. Apparently, I'm not the only person who thinks so.

I have posted a mail, asking for your apologies if there was a
misunderstanding. It seems you don't give a damn.
[...]

Sorry, but I never received such a mail. The only mail I have
received from you was something about Godwin's Law, essentially
telling me to stop posting in a thread that you yourself continue
posting in. Obviously, nobody really respects that "law", because
there are as many posts in this thread as ever, but the site in which
it was defined was rather amusing.

Dave

P.S. The only mail I receive is that in which "dheld", "David" or
"Dave" appears in the To: line of the header. My mail reader
deletes the rest off the server before I see it. This kills about 90%
of the spam I get.

 

[WW]

David B. Held wrote:
[SNIP]

No, because I never suggested such a thing. You're the one that
made that claim for me, which is fairly rude.

Just like your comment was.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder. You just seem to act immature
sometimes.

I see. So why don't you tell *that*? Why the sarcastic and humiliating
tone? Oh, yes, I remember. Because you still did not get overit.

Apparently, I'm not the only person who thinks so.

Yes. Be proud Beth shares your opinion.

I have posted a mail, asking for your apologies if there was a
misunderstanding. It seems you don't give a damn.
[...]

Sorry, but I never received such a mail.

Post here not mail. Sorry. In that thread and not this one.

The only mail I have
received from you was something about Godwin's Law, essentially
telling me to stop posting in a thread that you yourself continue
posting in.

Since afterwards for several hours people still kept posting what was the
point?

Obviously, nobody really respects that "law", because
there are as many posts in this thread as ever, but the site in which
it was defined was rather amusing.

Yeah, it is.

Dave

P.S. The only mail I receive is that in which "dheld", "David" or
"Dave" appears in the To: line of the header. My mail reader
deletes the rest off the server before I see it. This kills about 90%
of the spam I get.

A good one. I have to get somehow a Linux server working for me as well,
but right now I cannot afford it. And the servesr the ISP provides are
ridiculous. Here where I live they sell you 1M/1M connection but(!) they
does not allow you to run servers. To run servers you have to buy a
"business connection", which does not give you any more service but costs 3
times more. Silly. So what I am left with is Outlook Express and its
"rules".

 

[David B. Held]

That explains why you consider the question unanswered.

??? Umm...ridiculous statements like this are the product of taking
things out of context too liberally. The original question was whether
MS, Borland, or IBM admit that their compilers are not strictly
conforming. I answered the question a long time ago. You kept
insisting that it was not answered, hence, my quote of your quote
above. So I'm not really sure where you got the idea that I
consider the question unanswered, since I'm not even the one
that asked it!!! You are! I was someone *giving an answer*.
So even someone who knows nothing about this thread can
see you've sunken into absurdity, since it doesn't make any
sense at all that someone giving an answer would consider the
answered question unanswered, while someone asking it, but
rejecting all the answers, would not!

[...]

You're right. They didn't fail that section.

Then your point is moot, since you were wrong about void main()
being illegal. And I don't see MS or IBM on your "partially
conforming" list either.

So basically, you don't mind making a fool of yourself by taking quotes
out of context until the originally meaning is completely reversed? I mean,
who do you think you are fooling? Do you think that every person
reading this thread is illiterate, and can't see the previous post in which
I explain how Borland is conforming in ANSI mode?

I'm also dumbfounded on how you "don't see MS...on [my] 'partially
conforming' list". Did you not see this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/productinfo/overview/whatsnew.aspx

"With 98-percent conformance, Visual C++ .NET 2003 is
more conformant to ISO C++ standards than any previous
version of Visual C++, and it contains new language support
for features including Koenig Lookup and Partial Template
Specialization."

Unbelievable as it may be, this quote is in the exact post to which
you are replying. It is right below the Borland quote. Only someone
with extreme ADD would have failed to continue reading past the
end of the Borland quote to see this. Do you suppose a healthy
dose of Ritalin would help your understanding on this thread? Oh,
and Mr. Terekov politely included several references to IBM's
compiler manuals, which show that their compilers don't even allow
more than the typical two forms for main(), and most certainly not
"void main()".

Furthermore, I included the results from the CUJ compiler roundup,
which includes all the major compilers on the market, and shows
that at the time of publication, not a single one of them was 100%
conforming according to any test. The rest of the C++ community
pretty much respects the result of the test, even if they might disagree
on minor points here and there about the interpretation of conformance
tests. But one thing they do agree on is that the major point is
unassailable: all but one compiler are provably non-conforming, and
the one that might be conforming is certainly not perfectly so.

How you get that MS or IBM are not on the partially conforming
list is simply not comprehensible to me. You're going to need to
explain how you read my entire post and missed all the parts where
I showed that they are non-conforming.

Still waiting for you to prove void main() is illegal according to the
standard (and not by quoting it out of context either).

I don't need to prove that. It's been proven tens, if not hundreds of
times already. To do so again would be ridiculous. What you *are*
waiting for is for me (or someone else) to prove *to you* that "void
main()" is illegal. Unfortunately, I believe this is a non-computable
problem. That is, proving to you that "void main()" is illegal is
isomorphic to solving the halting problem. It is also analogous to
teaching tensor calculus to an igneous rock formation.

But wait! You've already proven you weren't competent enough to
refute where the standard states...

??? What does it mean to "refute where the standard states X"? I'm
one of the people that QUOTED the standard, so why on earth would
I try to refute that which I quoted? You are not making any sense at
all.

3.6.1 Main function paragraph 2:
"It shall have a return type of type int
-->BUT<--
otherwise its type is implementation-defined"

That's pretty clear:

That's the only thing we can all agree on.

A conforming compiler can use void main() as long as it makes int
main() available...duh!

If it's so obvious, why are you the only person in this thread that reads it
that way? You are somehow smarter than 10-20 other people, some
of whom are responsible for interpreting and redefining the standard?
Explain how "shall have a return type of int" REALLY means "may
have any return type as long as one of them is int". To analyze the
logic of your proposition, I will offer one more analogy:

"Vehicles travelling on a highway with no speed limit signs shall
travel at no more than 55 miles per hour"

vs.

"Vehicles travelling on a highway with no speed limit signs may
travel at any speed, AS LONG AS ONE OF THEM IS
TRAVELLING at no more than 55 miles per hour."

As far as I can tell, your argument and my example have exactly
the same logical form. So you should be able to use my analogy
to prove to the state patrol officer that you were speeding legally,
because there was at least one other person on the road who was
not. Put your money where your mouth is, and try it out. Or do
you not believe in your own "logic"?

So I'm not wasting my time with your stupidity any longer, since
you aren't going to be honest enough to simply refute it with
logic or facts (I wonder if you even know what those words
mean?).

This is pretty funny. I have facilitated your self-embarrassment
time and again, and you still come back for more. It's like you
don't understand or don't care how other people view you. It
makes me wonder if you are mildly autistic. Or perhaps this is
the only way you can get attention. Or maybe you have a
compulsive need for attention, and being rigidly contrarian serves
that purpose. At any rate, if I were to present any more logic or
facts, I could just about write a Ph.D dissertation on "Why void
main() is ill-formed C++". And you still wouldn't get it.

Dave

 

[David B. Held]

So if you can't hear me speak then you must be deaf? It couldn't be
you can't hear me because we have never communicated other than
in writing, would it? Haha! This just emphasizes your lack of logical
thinking abilities.

Well, I was trying to understand how you drew the conclusion that I
could be deaf. I presumed that you were not foolish enough to
accuse someone of being deaf without ever having spoken something
to them. But apparently, my assumptions were far too forgiving.

I meant dumb in the sense of stupid. Thanks for proving me right.

Well, you're the only person I know who has used the idiomatic
expression "deaf, dumb, and blind" with "dumb" meaning "stupid".
Anyway, I will agree that I'm stupid if you will agree that you're
wrong. Then you're left with the stupid person proving you wrong.
I can live with that. Can you?

Telepathy doesn't exist

Well, you can't prove that it doesn't exist. At best, you can say that
there is no statistically significant evidence that it exists. But you're
quite used to making claims without proof, aren't you?

and you are still blindly posting random responses.

No, I'm posting pithy responses because you don't deserve completely
serious responses.

[...]

Wouldn't that be a treat?

You are about to find out, little boy.

Really? Please, please, please, don't stop writing!! I beg of you to
continue this thread on into eternity! Without it I will have no more
reason to live!! (I wonder if the reverse psychology is working....)

[...]
Wrong again. We've been discussing what *RETURN TYPES* are
legal according to the standard, as quoted above. This isn't about
what paramenter types are allowed, this isn't about whether int
main() is legal, this is about if anything other than int main() is allowed,
including, but not limited to, void main().

Umm...quote where I said that the parameter types were contentious.
Quote where I suggested that you or anyone else claimed that "int
main()" is not legal. As far as whether anything other than "int main()"
is allowed, clearly it is. We all agree on that. The only question is
whether other return types are allowed, and there is no ambiguity.
The standard clearly does not allow any return type than int, as
stated in:

"It shall have a return type of type int..."

The only way that could allow for other return types is if it gave
conditions under which those other return types are allowed, in
which case you would expect the phrase above to be followed by
"unless...<condition1>, <condition2>, ...,<conditionN>". But it is
*not* followed by such conditions. It make no more mention of
the return type of main() at all. The rest of the paragraph speaks
only of the REST of the signature of main(). If a LAWYER told
you that this is the proper way to read the standard, would you
agree?

[...]
I will and I will start by ignoring your childish stupidity, your childish
dodging and evading the issues, and your childish reasoning abilities.

Awww...is little tumbleweed getting frustrated that I'm having a little
fun at his expense? Maybe not all publicity is good publicity after all,
huh?

[...]
You didn't address the issue. Again! You coward! Of course the
sentence in question *IS NOT* ambigious because it says "shall"
but then modifies "shall" with "but otherwise".

No, it does not modify "shall have a return type of int". The "but
otherwise" merely serves to indicate that what follows refers to
everything BUT the RETURN TYPE. I'm not sure if that's
"ambigious" or not, because I don't know what that word means,
and it's not on www.dictionary.com.

That means a conforming compiler shall have a version of
main() that returns an int (they have no choice but to allow that one)
BUT OTHERWISE you can return whatever you like (if
implemented/defined),

You're the only person who reads it that way, and have thus far
failed to provide a convincing argument why it should be read that
way. In particular, you have failed to convince the people who
wrote the text, the people who invented the language, and the
people who parse the text to implement compilers. If your rendering
is correct, why don't any of the vendors you state allow non-int
return types in conforming mode? Or perhaps you can show me
a reference to a compiler manual that shows return types for main()
other than int being allowed? Oh, of course not. That's because
you can't show anything about any of the vendors.

1) No compiler output
2) No vendor statement claiming 100% conformance
3) No vendor manual showing non-int return types for main() as
well-formed
4) No compiler which accepts '}' in place of ';' (except, of course,
the Sage/Mulder C/C++ compiler!)

On the other hand, you have been shown compiler output clearly
contradicting your claims, you have been shown vendor statements
clearly contradicting your claims, you have been shown compiler
manuals clearly contradicting your claims, and you have been
shown the standard clearly contradicting your claims. Every person
but you who has weighed in on this topic agrees that "void main()"
is ill-formed C++. Despite all that, you insist that you have made
your case. Unbelievable. If there is such a thing as "blind faith",
you have demonstrated it with utmost flair.

[...]
End of discussion. Case closed.

If only that were true. Do I dare to hope?

Dave

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:53:20 -0500
MsgID:<[email protected]>

The standard clearly does not allow any return type than int, as
stated in:

"It shall have a return type of type int..."

Don't act like you are stupid (unless that isn't an act), but the standard does
not just say, "It shall have a return type of type int...", it says, "It shall
have a return type of type int BUT otherwise its type is
implementation-defined".

Do you know what "but otherwise" means? It means:

"what is to follow are the exceptions...".

But you don't believe that because you blindly don't WANT to believe that, so
I'm offering you this chance to prove just how intelligent and honest you really
are. Here is a link to a dictionary, that defines what the words "but" and
"otherwise" mean...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0577100.html and
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/o/o0147100.html

Look up the meaning on those two words and report back to us if they imply
anything other than some exceptions were to follow as used in the sentence
above. Please quote the dictionary for us when you do your "analysis", so we can
compare your version to reality.

This is your big chance to shine Davy, and make me look like a fool in the
process, but I predict that what will happen instead, is I will continue to
shine and you will look continue to like a fool because you will either
(1)ignore this post (change the subject, rant and rave and foam at the mouth as
you have in other posts, run away, etc), or (2) lie. Care to prove me wrong?

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[Jonathan Mcdougall]

The standard clearly does not allow any return type than int, as

Don't act like you are stupid (unless that isn't an act), but the standard does
not just say, "It shall have a return type of type int...", it says, "It shall
have a return type of type int BUT otherwise its type is
implementation-defined".

Do you know what "but otherwise" means? It means:

"what is to follow are the exceptions...".

That was not the intent of that sentence. If you think it
can be interpreted that way, send a dr to the commitee.


Jonathan

 

[Attila Feher]

Yakyakyak.

Pathetic troll! You are not only boring but criminally boring. And not
only you use fool language but you criminally do so.

Get that Chapter 28 of the C++ standard and tell us what does it say about
the main function - or get lost. If you cannot tell the above it means you
have: no standard, no truth, no clue and that you have lost all of your
arguments. Last warning. If you fail to post what Chapter 28 of the C++
standard says about the main function within 24 hours you have lost all your
arguments here. Then it will be completely proven that you have no
standard, no truth, no clue. You have to show that you are worthy of
attention. So far you have shown that you are not.

 

[Randall Hyde]

If you fail to post what Chapter 28 of the C++
standard says about the main function within 24 hours you have lost all your
arguments here. Then it will be completely proven that you have no
standard, no truth, no clue. You have to show that you are worthy of
attention. So far you have shown that you are not.

Since when has he had an argument?
You give him more credit than he is due. He lives for
comments like this. It makes him feel he is worthy
of attention .
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

 

[tom_usenet]

Then your point is moot, since you were wrong about void main() being illegal.
And I don't see MS or IBM on your "partially conforming" list either.

Still waiting for you to prove void main() is illegal according to the standard
(and not by quoting it out of context either).

MSVC7.1 is conforming in this respect:

void main(){}

Compiling...
dotnettest.cpp
c:\Dev\test\dotnettest\dotnettest\dotnettest.cpp(2) : warning C4326:
return type of 'main' should be 'int' instead of 'void'


All that is required to be conforming is a diagnostic that the code
has a diagnosable error - VC7.1 emits one correctly for the
non-standard code "void main(){}". The text of any errors isn't
relevent. To be standards conforming a compiler need only have one
error message that it uses to signal any diagnosable error.

Tom

 

[WW]

Since when has he had an argument?

If you talk to someone with a limited understanding you try to use his
language. ;-)

You give him more credit than he is due.
He lives for comments like this.
It makes him feel he is worthy
of attention .

He is close to have less than 12 hours left of any attention from me. I
gave him another chance, but it seems he does not want to use it.

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:36:29 -0400
MsgID:<[email protected]>

That was not the intent of that sentence. If you think it
can be interpreted that way, send a dr to the commitee.

It isn't an interpretation, it is a literal translation. Unless you can prove
that what they didn't mean what they said or didn't say what they meant, all we
have is your word, not the Standard's word.

But you know what? I don't care what was intended or what was meant, as long as
the manufacturer offers me what I want or need. Standards can be good things or
they can be bad things -- especially when the Standard becomes stagnant,
dictatorial, and unresponsive to *all* of it's end users.

Making void main() illegal would not be a diplomatic thing to do. It would only
appeal to the C/C++ "theorists" or "purists" who worship standards in general so
much that they would want it to become the unyielding Word of God, but I was
raised in a freethinking environment, unencumbered by unwavering fanatical
adherence to just one idea. It called "evolution".

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:43:18 +0300
MsgID:<[email protected]>

I see you still have absolutely nothing intelligent to say, so I'm just ignoring
your drivel as usual.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[WW]

I see you still have absolutely nothing intelligent to say, so I'm
just ignoring your drivel as usual.

You have less than 4 hours left to prove yourself.

 

[SenderX]

You have less than 4 hours left to prove yourself.

You are a very kind soul.



Please... After his time is up...

Don't reply to any more comments posted by, the sage.

The more you reply, the more you boost its/his "twisted" ego...

Just a thought...



P.S.

I know the sage provides you with many laughs, at least he has done some
good...

 

[Jonathan Mcdougall]

The standard clearly does not allow any return type than int, as

It isn't an interpretation,

Yes, all we do is interpret things, in every domain.

it is a literal translation.

What does that mean ?

Unless you can prove
that what they didn't mean what they said or didn't say what they meant, all we
have is your word, not the Standard's word.

The standard has been written by people like you and me. What is red for me
could
be blue for you; what I understand can be understood completly differently
by you.

No I am not on the committee, but it has been said enough times by enough
people
to prove you that the intent of that phrase was to allow main() to take
implementation-defined arguments, but to restricts its return type to an
int.
That was the intent. Nobody can prove it more than that, even people who
actually
_wrote_ that sentence told you.

Which leads me to : If you think it can be interpreted that way, send a dr
to
the commitee, since it was not the expected interpretation.

But you know what? I don't care what was intended or what was meant,
Oh.

as long as
the manufacturer offers me what I want or need. Standards can be good things or
they can be bad things -- especially when the Standard becomes stagnant,
dictatorial, and unresponsive to *all* of it's end users.

What do you mean ?

Making void main() illegal would not be a diplomatic thing to do.

Not diplomatic, I don`t know. Not practical, you are right.

It would only
appeal to the C/C++ "theorists" or "purists" who worship standards in

general

No, it would only break too much existing code.

so
much that they would want it to become the unyielding Word of God, but I was
raised in a freethinking environment, unencumbered by unwavering fanatical
adherence to just one idea. It called "evolution".

I don`t quite get your point here.

Now, please, I think we are having quite a serious an interesting
discussion.
Try to answer to my questions and opinions in a decent way, not snipping
everything.


Jonathan

 

[Attila Feher]

The Sage,

You have been given a chance. You have avoided to confront it. So far you
have not shown up any effort whatsoever to make any work to support your
fallacies - other then typing criminal amount of name calling. That's it.
Your time is up.

You have failed to prove that you have the C++ standard - therefore you have
proven yourself to be a clueless, pathetic, incompetent, illiterate liar.
(You have claimed quoting the standard you don't even have.)

Prior to that you have proven that you fail to understand even the basics of
C++ or the English language.

You have proven you do not have any of the compilers listed by you, since
you have not been able to provide *any* real compiler output whatsoever to
prove your claims about missing semicolons and void main being acceptable.
Others have proven that all the compilers you have listed reject your code.

You have successfully proven that you are clueless, incompetent by avoiding
to answer any questions or to provide any proof to support your lies and
fallacies. You top that all by being criminally abusive and resort to name
calling in each of your posts.

Since you have proven yourself as a clueless, incompetent, illiterate,
immoral liar you are officially ignored as one not worthy of anyones
attention (unless that anyone is with mental care or law enforcement).

The Sage,

Your time is up. You are not worthy of our attention. You have lost. You
will be ignored.

 

[SenderX]

Your time is up. You are not worthy of our attention. You have lost.
You

will be ignored.

Time to have a drink, and celebrate!

=)

 

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

general

No, it would only break too much existing code.

But it would be no big deal to fix the exisiting code.