Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C

[Keith Thompson]

C is a funny language in that it pervades everywhere and people having
issues with it may not be aware of the strict partitioning into standard
language / extensions / compilers / implementations / platform / libraries /
applications / hardware / etc that some try to enforce here. As far as the
latter are concerned, only the standard language is on-topic (plus anything
to do with topicality!)

But the standard language would be quite a narrow topic, unless you are
interested in C Standard minutiae, while most questions seem to be covered
by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, and many of the more
relevant groups are pretty much dead, I can't see the problems. Just put
"OT" in front of the subject to stop anyone complaining.

The standard C language is not a narrow topic. This newsgroup still has
a decent level of traffic, even if you consider only the articles that
you and I would both agree are topical. And comp.unix.programmer is
also still active. I think some relevant Windows groups are as well;
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 is the one I tend to refer people
to.

And the fact remains that if you have a question about some
POSIX-specific C function, comp.unix.programmer has a higher density
than comp.lang.c of people who can answer and discuss it intelligently.
(Some of them happen to be the same people).

Standard C happens to be an interest of mine. I *like* having a forum
to discuss it in.

As for putting "OT" in the subject, how about

Subject: OT: How do I repair my bicycle chain?

 

[Keith Thompson]

I don't believe that.

Why not?

When I mention that a question would be better asked elsewhere, I almost
always suggest one or more newsgroups that would be a better fit. Have
you not noticed that?

[...]

I probably misunderstood you. I thought you meant you didn't
believe James's statement that "We believe that such questions
should not be asked HERE", i.e., that you were expressing doubt
about what we believe. On further consideration, I think you meant
that you don't believe that such questions should not be asked here.
Assuming that's the case, please ignore my previous response. (I
still disagee with you.)

 

[Keith Thompson]

The closest you could get would be lcc-win32, which for some reason is
discussed here fairly frequently, rather than on comp.lang.lcc.

[...]

You mean comp.compilers.lcc, which discusses both lcc-win32 and the
lcc compiler on which it was based.

 

[BartC]

And comp.unix.programmer is
also still active. I think some relevant Windows groups are as well;
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 is the one I tend to refer people
to.

That one is not so bad. But microsoft.public.win32.programmer.gdi for
example, last had a question posted 8 months ago (and hasn't had any
replies). And someone who thinks gnu.gcc might help with their gcc-specific
C problems, will see it apparently hasn't had any posts - ever!

As for putting "OT" in the subject, how about

Subject: OT: How do I repair my bicycle chain?

(Actually they could well have a better chance of getting help here, than
somewhere like uk.rec.cycling, which is very active, but highly political.)

The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
anything under the sun.

 

[James Kuyper]

On 08/06/2012 03:28 PM, BartC wrote:
....

The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
anything under the sun.

That begs the question - IMO it is almost never "sensible" to post the
first message of a thread using "OT" - if you need "OT", you've chosen
the wrong forum for your message. Thread drift often makes it
appropriate to add it to an existing thread's subject line, but that's a
different issue.

 

[James Kuyper]

The closest you could get would be lcc-win32, which for some reason is
discussed here fairly frequently, rather than on comp.lang.lcc.

[...]

You mean comp.compilers.lcc, which discusses both lcc-win32 and the
lcc compiler on which it was based.

I should have checked, rather than relying upon my memory. Sorry!

 

[Nick Keighley]

So it is repeatedly claimed.  Such repitition aside, I don't see any
evidence that that is actually the case.

I was correcting the impression he'd formed that people thought this
was
a Windows only ng.

I see little point in reiterating previously iterated positions

 

[gwowen]

Why not?

Sorry, vague answer. I meant "I do not believe that such questions
should be asked here." Not "I do not believe that you believe that
such questions should be asked here".

 

[James Kuyper]

Sorry, vague answer. I meant "I do not believe that such questions
should be asked here." Not "I do not believe that you believe that
such questions should be asked here".

"Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.

 

[gwowen]

"Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.

No. That's exactly what I meant. I don't believe that such questions
should not be asked here.

I believe that any question relating to the C language, including
common extensions and C APIs like POSIX, pthreads, the Win32 C API,
Jacob's Container library, DOS TSR, Borland C should all be welcomed.

Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no problem
in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to say, you're
probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to see if someone who
knows more comes along.

 

[James Kuyper]

No. That's exactly what I meant. I don't believe that such questions
should not be asked here.

In your previous message you said:

... I meant "I do not believe that such questions should be asked here."

The only difference between those two different expressions, by you, of
what you meant (other than "do not" => "don't") is "should" => "should
not", a difference that changes the meaning radically. I hope you can
understand how such tiny discrepancies can lead to major confusion.

....

Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no problem
in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to say, you're
probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to see if someone who
knows more comes along.

I believe that the earlier the poster is re-directed to a more
appropriate forum, the better. He or she will get better answers sooner
that way.

 

[Neil Cerutti]

I believe that any question relating to the C language,
including common extensions and C APIs like POSIX, pthreads,
the Win32 C API, Jacob's Container library, DOS TSR, Borland C
should all be welcomed.

Despite that, I hope you can see why a person interested in C
programming wouldn't wish this group to be filled with
discussions of non-standard C libraries and implementation
details of unknown compilers.

Conversely, most regulars of this newgroup are respectful to
those who come here with initially mistaken assumptions.

Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no
problem in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to
say, you're probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to
see if someone who knows more comes along.

comp.lang.c is an unmoderated group with effectively no charter.
Thus, if you are invested in defining the topic of this
newsgroup, then some sort of action is required.

You may make the accusation that this group spends perhaps too
much time and bandwidth defining itself. But it's long-standing
part of its culture.

 

[Keith Thompson]

No. That's exactly what I meant. I don't believe that such questions
should not be asked here.

I believe that any question relating to the C language, including
common extensions and C APIs like POSIX, pthreads, the Win32 C API,
Jacob's Container library, DOS TSR, Borland C should all be welcomed.

Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no problem
in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to say, you're
probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to see if someone who
knows more comes along.

Ok, let me ask you a more specific question.

If someone has a question about, say, the fork() function (which
is defined by POSIX and not by ISO C), would that person be better
off asking that question in comp.lang.c or in comp.unix.programmer?

The answer seems obvious to me: it's better to ask in
comp.unix.programmer, largely because it's a Unix/POSIX-specific
question, and that's where the experts hang out. Do you agree?

Are you seriously saying we should "keep quiet for a day or so"
rather than letting the questioner know about a better forum?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Are you seriously saying we should "keep quiet for a day or so"
rather than letting the questioner know about a better forum?

In short: Yes. As I've explained to you repeatedly over the last few days,
the ethic in every other group/online forum is: If you can't (or won't)
answer the question, then STFU. Do not get in the way of others who can and
will. As they say in the army, lead, follow, or get out of the way!

This method works very well and should be followed here.

See, the problem is that even *if* your intentions are pure (when you
"redirect" the questioner to a more "appropriate" group), which is highly
doubtful, BTW, the questioner never sees it that way. Instead, all he sees
is you being a jerk.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as foolish,
and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

 

[Kenny McCormack]

The standard C language is not a narrow topic.

Yes. It is. Moreover, although it seems to be a subject of great interest
to obessives like you, it really is of no interest to the typical newbie.

So, make no mistake, by making this newsgroup be about religious C (Chapter
& verse), you are excluding the newbies who might otherwise benefit from a
more diverse group. Believe me, this standards-only stuff is only of
interest to folks like Kiki (and a few other "regulars" here).

--
But the Bush apologists hope that you won't remember all that. And they
also have a theory, which I've been hearing more and more - namely,
that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the
2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future
policies, and that's what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.

(Paul Krugman - Addicted to Bush)

 

[Rui Maciel]

Yes. It is. Moreover, although it seems to be a subject of great
interest to obessives like you, it really is of no interest to the typical
newbie.

So, make no mistake, by making this newsgroup be about religious C
(Chapter & verse), you are excluding the newbies who might otherwise
benefit from a more diverse group. Believe me, this standards-only stuff
is only of interest to folks like Kiki (and a few other "regulars" here).

This newsgroup tends to receive an average of about 900 posts per month
while focusing on the C programming language. I don't believe this would
happen if the C programming language was, as you claim, a narrow topic.

In addition, no newbie is excluded if a newsgroup dedicated to the C
programming language hosts discussions on the C programming language. If a
newbie wishes to discuss any issue regarding the use of the C programming
language then this is the place to go. If, instead, a newbie wishes to
discuss any issue which goes beyond the C programming language, such as unix
programming, then there are other places which are expected to serve him
better. The reason for that is that those topics tend to be "only of
interest to folks" who follow those newsgroups.

Finally, these people whose interests and focus you criticise so much are
actually those who are in a position to help out and give meaningful answers
to newbies, which they actually do. In other words, they are essentially
the reason why newbies go here to begin with. So, if you actually had any
concern regarding their best interests then you wouldn't be launching these
personal attacks on the people who spend their personal time helping them
out when they can.


Rui Maciel

 

[Nick Keighley]

Keith Thompson  <[email protected]>


In short: Yes.  As I've explained to you repeatedly over the last few days,
the ethic in every other group/online forum is: If you can't (or won't)
answer the question, then STFU.

I know you keep on saying this but I haven't come across it.
Most other .lang groups don't get as much topic busting as comp.lang.c
but I'm sure I've seen people being politely redirected on other
groups.

Besides don't you get bored repeating yourself?

See, the problem is that even *if* your intentions are pure (when you
"redirect" the questioner to a more "appropriate" group), which is highly
doubtful, BTW, the questioner never sees it that way.  Instead, all he sees
is you being a jerk.

I've known people to say thankyou sometimes.

 

[Ansel]

This newsgroup tends to receive an average of about 900 posts per
month while focusing on the C programming language.

What is wrong with that "picture"?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

We can only comment on the questions you actually ask. The only specific
example you gave was for "ls", for which there are utilities from
section 2 of the Unix manual that provide the same information in a form
that's easier to deal with from inside a program than parsing the output
of "ls". There's lots of other POSIX command line utilities for which
that's also true. The fact that you were interested in utilities for
which it's not true was not at all obvious.

This, incidentally, is a very good illustration of why, when posting in
hostile environments, such as this one (though, to be fair, most of Usenet
also qualifies), it is a good idea to not be too specific about what your
real problem is *or* to give examples (analogies) which are not your real
problem.

In both cases, the goons will latch onto the specific problem (as you have
proudly done) and ignore the question that you actually asked.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

This, incidentally, is a very good illustration of why, when posting in
hostile environments, such as this one (though, to be fair, most of Usenet
also qualifies), it is a good idea to not be too specific about what your
real problem is *or* to give examples (analogies) which are not your real
problem.

In both cases, the goons will latch onto the specific problem (as you have
proudly done) and ignore the question that you actually asked.

Vague questions get vague answers--probably too vague to be of any use.

Specific questions get specific answers--but if the specifics do not
match your actual problem, they probably won't be of any use either.

S