Will be back later today.  Originally I was going to do 50 of these
every time Thompson makes a provocative post, but I decided that
Thompson is too much of a machine to benefit from such 
conditioning.  Still, I'll be keeping an eye on Thompson's 
behavior over the coming months (while I'm performing my work), 
and if Thompson shows he's receptive to the treatment, my
work will be done. 

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Complete Idiot wrote:
> Will be back later today.  Originally I was going to do 50 of these
> every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...

I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?

jameskuyper said:

> Complete Idiot wrote:
>> Will be back later today.  Originally I was going to do 50 of
>> these every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...
> 
> I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?

A post. (Duh.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

In article <3723e569-f608-42d0-83dd-aefa608baad0@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
jameskuyper  <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>Complete Idiot wrote:
>> Will be back later today.  Originally I was going to do 50 of these
>> every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...
>
>I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?

Taking this question fully at face value, I will answer it thusly.

One where you can detect that the poster is pushing an agenda, and not
just answering the question.

Since Kiki rarely answers a question other than by quoting useless sh*t
from the standards documents and/or "kindly" redirecting to another
group, I leave it to you to draw the obvious conclusions.

Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> behavior over the coming months (while I'm performing my work), 

won't it be hard to type while kneeling?

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:

> Complete Idiot wrote:
>> Will be back later today.  Originally I was going to do 50 of these
>> every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...
> 
> I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?

I realized recently, while reading insults in the imperative from a piece
of Eurotrash named uri guttmann, that I've simply had enough of usenet and
will let my newsfeed expire on the fourth of next month.

It got me thinking back to when I started posting several years ago.  My
first response on usenet was from Keith, who wrote, "please don't
top-post," which I was prone to do using Outlook Express.

With all the pushing and shoving that has occured, I've also learned a
boatload of C, and from Keith in particular.  In my opinion, his worst
moments are when he is a partisan with language purity and usenet
orthodoxy.

Not forgotten are his best moments, when he is clear, concise, helpful, and
encyclopedic.  I can instantly tell the difference between the fake Keith
and the other Keith.

Adios, amigos.
-- 
Frank

It's the Power of the Almighty, the Splendor of Nature, and then you.
~~ Al Franken

Franken Sense wrote:
> In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
....
> > I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?
....
> ...  In my opinion, his worst
> moments are when he is a partisan with language purity ...

What in the world to you mean by "language purity"? I don't think he's
ever suggested that there's anything wrong with writing code in other
languages, or code that depends upon implementation-specific features;
all he's done is suggest that there are other forums where it's easier
to get good answers to questions about such code.

He's got a pretty accurate understanding of what the standard does and
does not say, and will object if someone says something about standard
C which disagrees with his understanding (unless they back their
statements up with citations that he finds convincing). But if that's
what you mean by being a "partisan with language purity", I can't see
anything wrong with it. Objecting to that seems to me about as
reasonable as objecting to someone for being a "partisan for truth in
advertising", or a "partisan for accurate weights and measures".

Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> writes:
> In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
>> Complete Idiot wrote:
>>> Will be back later today.  Originally I was going to do 50 of these
>>> every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...
>> 
>> I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?
>
> I realized recently, while reading insults in the imperative from a piece
> of Eurotrash named uri guttmann, that I've simply had enough of usenet and
> will let my newsfeed expire on the fourth of next month.
>
> It got me thinking back to when I started posting several years ago.  My
> first response on usenet was from Keith, who wrote, "please don't
> top-post," which I was prone to do using Outlook Express.

I'm curious: was that all I said, or did I also address whatever
question you asked?

> With all the pushing and shoving that has occured, I've also learned a
> boatload of C, and from Keith in particular.  In my opinion, his worst
> moments are when he is a partisan with language purity and usenet
> orthodoxy.
>
> Not forgotten are his best moments, when he is clear, concise, helpful, and
> encyclopedic.  I can instantly tell the difference between the fake Keith
> and the other Keith.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson said:

> Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> writes:
<snip>
>>
>> It got me thinking back to when I started posting several years
>> ago.  My first response on usenet was from Keith, who wrote,
>> "please don't top-post," which I was prone to do using Outlook
>> Express.
> 
> I'm curious: was that all I said, or did I also address whatever
> question you asked?

According to Google's archives, Franken Sense first posted here in 
March this year, which is hardly "several years ago". Although the 
archives aren't particularly good, this does more or less square 
with my own recollection - I don't recall him posting here before 
then. So I wouldn't bother trusting too much to the accuracy of his 
claim about your first reply to him.

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Forged article? See 
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> Keith Thompson said:
>> Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> writes:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> It got me thinking back to when I started posting several years
>>> ago.  My first response on usenet was from Keith, who wrote,
>>> "please don't top-post," which I was prone to do using Outlook
>>> Express.
>> 
>> I'm curious: was that all I said, or did I also address whatever
>> question you asked?
>
> According to Google's archives, Franken Sense first posted here in 
> March this year, which is hardly "several years ago". Although the 
> archives aren't particularly good, this does more or less square 
> with my own recollection - I don't recall him posting here before 
> then. So I wouldn't bother trusting too much to the accuracy of his 
> claim about your first reply to him.
>
> <snip>

He might have posted under a different name.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson said:

> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> Keith Thompson said:
>>> Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> writes:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> It got me thinking back to when I started posting several years
>>>> ago.  My first response on usenet was from Keith, who wrote,
>>>> "please don't top-post," which I was prone to do using Outlook
>>>> Express.
>>> 
>>> I'm curious: was that all I said, or did I also address whatever
>>> question you asked?
>>
>> According to Google's archives, Franken Sense first posted here
>> in March this year, which is hardly "several years ago". Although
>> the archives aren't particularly good, this does more or less
>> square with my own recollection - I don't recall him posting here
>> before then. So I wouldn't bother trusting too much to the
>> accuracy of his claim about your first reply to him.
>>
>> <snip>
> 
> He might have posted under a different name.

Yes, and he might be Dan Pop, Michael Rubinstein, or Dennis Ritchie 
- but I know of no way to check out any of those possibilities. Two 
people might post under the same name (either for legitimate 
reasons or because one is impersonating another), in which case 
there is a general need to disambiguate them - and this can 
generally be done with some ease. (Witness the recent pathetic 
forgery attempts, which are easily identified by their tone and 
content.) But posters desiring to back up a claim that they have 
been posting here for several years, in the face of evidence that 
they have not, bear the burden of providing counter-evidence.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Forged article? See 
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On 31 May, 00:48, Franken Sense <fr...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
>
> > Complete Idiot wrote:
> >> Will be back later today. =A0Originally I was going to do 50 of these
> >> every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...
>
> > I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?
>
> I realized recently, while reading insults in the imperative from a piece
> of Eurotrash named uri guttmann, that I've simply had enough of usenet an=
d
> will let my newsfeed expire on the fourth of next month.

sorry to see you go

<snip>

On 31 May, 08:44, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Keith Thompson said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> >> Keith Thompson said:
> >>> Franken Sense <fr...@example.invalid> writes:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>> It got me thinking back to when I started posting several years
> >>>> ago. =A0My first response on usenet was from Keith, who wrote,
> >>>> "please don't top-post," which I was prone to do using Outlook
> >>>> Express.
>
> >>> I'm curious: was that all I said, or did I also address whatever
> >>> question you asked?
>
> >> According to Google's archives, Franken Sense first posted here
> >> in March this year, which is hardly "several years ago". Although
> >> the archives aren't particularly good, this does more or less
> >> square with my own recollection - I don't recall him posting here
> >> before then. So I wouldn't bother trusting too much to the
> >> accuracy of his claim about your first reply to him.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> > He might have posted under a different name.
>
> Yes, and he might be Dan Pop, Michael Rubinstein, or Dennis Ritchie
> - but I know of no way to check out any of those possibilities. Two
> people might post under the same name (either for legitimate
> reasons or because one is impersonating another), in which case
> there is a general need to disambiguate them - and this can
> generally be done with some ease. (Witness the recent pathetic
> forgery attempts, which are easily identified by their tone and
> content.) But posters desiring to back up a claim that they have
> been posting here for several years, in the face of evidence that
> they have not, bear the burden of providing counter-evidence.

I don't see why he should produce any proof of when he first
posted. Not everyone posts under their real name. They aren't
all trolls.

nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com said:

<snip>
 
> I don't see why he should produce any proof of when he first
> posted.

Neither do I. Until he does, however, his claim remains 
unsubstantiated. Which is fine, by the way - people make 
unsubstantiated claims all the time - but we are under no 
obligation to take him at his word.

> Not everyone posts under their real name. They aren't
> all trolls.

True enough.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Forged article? See 
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com said:
> <snip>
>  
>> I don't see why he should produce any proof of when he first
>> posted.
>
> Neither do I. Until he does, however, his claim remains 
> unsubstantiated. Which is fine, by the way - people make 
> unsubstantiated claims all the time - but we are under no 
> obligation to take him at his word.
[...]

I don't recall anyone suggesting any such obligation.  It doesn't
really matter to me when he started posting; I just asked a question
about something he wrote.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On May 31, 2:02=A0pm, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 31 May, 00:48, Franken Sense <fr...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
>
> > > Complete Idiot wrote:
> > >> Will be back later today. =A0Originally I was going to do 50 of thes=
e
> > >> every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...
>
> > > I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?
>
> > I realized recently, while reading insults in the imperative from a pie=
ce
> > of Eurotrash named uri guttmann, that I've simply had enough of usenet =
and
> > will let my newsfeed expire on the fourth of next month.
>
> sorry to see you go
>
> <snip>

Second! Franken Sense's topics have been consistently
interesting (despite a few overplayed sigs).

I'll spare you all my rendition of Big Yellow Taxi...

--
leavin'ona jetplane

On May 31, 12:02=A0pm, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 31 May, 00:48, Franken Sense <fr...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
>
> > > Complete Idiot wrote:
> > >> Will be back later today. =A0Originally I was going to do 50 of thes=
e
> > >> every time Thompson makes a provocative post, ...
>
> > > I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?
>
> > I realized recently, while reading insults in the imperative from a pie=
ce
> > of Eurotrash named uri guttmann, that I've simply had enough of usenet =
and
> > will let my newsfeed expire on the fourth of next month.
>
> sorry to see you go
>
> <snip>

<OT>
Uri Guttmann is sort of hard to deal with. But he is also one of the
most knowledgeable and helpful people on usenet
</OT>

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of Keith Thompson Did Inscribe:

> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com said:
>> <snip>
>>  
>>> I don't see why he should produce any proof of when he first
>>> posted.
>>
>> Neither do I. Until he does, however, his claim remains 
>> unsubstantiated. Which is fine, by the way - people make 
>> unsubstantiated claims all the time - but we are under no 
>> obligation to take him at his word.
> [...]
> 
> I don't recall anyone suggesting any such obligation.  It doesn't
> really matter to me when he started posting; I just asked a question
> about something he wrote.

My first question was how to post.
-- 
Frank

I do personal attacks only on people who specialize in personal attacks..
~~ Al Franken, Playboy interview

Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> wrote:

> Adios, amigos.

Don't worry, you'll be back, Merrill/George/James.

Under, if I've called correctly, at least the sixth different nym.

Richard

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of Richard Bos Did Inscribe:

> Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Adios, amigos.
> 
> Don't worry, you'll be back, Merrill/George/James.
> 
> Under, if I've called correctly, at least the sixth different nym.
> 
> Richard

James?  Ich hatte "Frank" sein sollen, bi� da� Al Franken als MN Senator
eingeschworen werde.  Leider wollen die Repugs eine gesetzliche Wahl nicht
anerkennen, und ich habe es mit usenet endlich saat.

Ich hoffe, da� ich nicht bald zur�ckkehre, denn das hei�t, da� ich wiederum
verletzt bin.

Die "George" Zitaten, die ich als Zufallschriften hatte, waren k�stlich.
Er ist der doofste Mann, den ich je im Fernsehen geschaut habe.
-- 
Frank

In many ways I'm still a Hubert Humphrey Democrat -- someone who believes
in afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. A society is
judged by how it treats the elderly, the sick, the impoverished. To me it's
a matter of ethics and compassion.
~~ Al Franken, Playboy interview

Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> writes:
[...]
> He and Chuck are OS bigots.  Keith might object, but they've been the
> Bush/Cheney of clc during the Bush/Cheney years, with the exception that
> while Chuck's C isn't far from George Bush's management skills, that is,
> always wrong, Keith does not have the heart of darkness that is Cheney's.
> What's more, Keith does not confuse paranoia with patriotism, greed with
> commerce, militarism with courage, and Keith can skillfully manipulate
> code, as opposed to lying about it, screwing it up, and then leaking it.
[...]

I'm sure that made some kind of sense in your head, but I have no idea
what you're trying to say.  If you'd care to try again without the
political metaphors, I might or might not comment.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:

> Franken Sense wrote:
>> In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
> ...
>>> I'm curious - what counts as a provocative post?
> ...
>> ...  In my opinion, his worst
>> moments are when he is a partisan with language purity ...
> 
> What in the world to you mean by "language purity"? I don't think he's
> ever suggested that there's anything wrong with writing code in other
> languages, or code that depends upon implementation-specific features;
> all he's done is suggest that there are other forums where it's easier
> to get good answers to questions about such code.
> 
> He's got a pretty accurate understanding of what the standard does and
> does not say, and will object if someone says something about standard
> C which disagrees with his understanding (unless they back their
> statements up with citations that he finds convincing). But if that's
> what you mean by being a "partisan with language purity", I can't see
> anything wrong with it. Objecting to that seems to me about as
> reasonable as objecting to someone for being a "partisan for truth in
> advertising", or a "partisan for accurate weights and measures".

He and Chuck are OS bigots.  Keith might object, but they've been the
Bush/Cheney of clc during the Bush/Cheney years, with the exception that
while Chuck's C isn't far from George Bush's management skills, that is,
always wrong, Keith does not have the heart of darkness that is Cheney's.
What's more, Keith does not confuse paranoia with patriotism, greed with
commerce, militarism with courage, and Keith can skillfully manipulate
code, as opposed to lying about it, screwing it up, and then leaking it.

There's a fault line between us windows cats and people like Heathfield.
My idea of portability is to put the OS on the machine in Saudi Arabia, and
because you have so many things guaranteed to be true from windows, then
you can write to that target; well that's portability as opposed to
thinking the code would need to run on a clicker.

I find it odd that I find myself "purer" from a C perspective than Richard,
with his commitment to regressive standards.
// I'm just commenting.
-- 
Frank

Most of us here in the media are what I call infotainers...Rush Limbaugh is
what I call a disinfotainer. He entertains by spreading disinformation.
~~ Al Franken

Franken Sense wrote:
> In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
>
> > Franken Sense wrote:
[Re: Keith Thompson]
> >> ...  In my opinion, his worst
> >> moments are when he is a partisan with language purity ...
> >
> > What in the world to you mean by "language purity"?
....
> He and Chuck are OS bigots.
....
> There's a fault line between us windows cats and people like Heathfield.

It's not entirely clear what you're saying (as is often the case with
your messages). However, I'll assume that these are connected
statements, despite the large amount of bad political analogies that
I've snipped out from between them. I assume that the OS that you
think Keith and Chuck are bigoted against is WIndows, and that the
fault line between you and Heathfield probably means that you think
he's an OS bigot too.

Chuck's pretty hard to defend on just about any issue. if you think
that KT or RH are bigoted against Windows I'd like to see citations
supporting that claim. I don't remember any such behavior. I remember
a great many messages objecting to OS-specific questions being asked
and answered here, rather than in the more appropriate and more
helpful OS-specific newsgroups - but if that happened more often for
Windows than for other OSs, it's only because it's one of the most
widely used OSs, not because of any hint of bias that they have shown.

I just did a Google search and looked at the 10 most recent messages
from KT and RH on c.l.c that contained the word Windows, and didn't
see the slightest bit of bigotry being expressed. On the other hand,
two of the three messages that Google lists for you containing the
word "Windows" are critical of it. I wouldn't consider you an anti-
Windows bigot on the basis of those two criticisms, but they
constitute far more supporting evidence than I could find against the
other two people.

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of Keith Thompson Did Inscribe:

> Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> writes:
> [...]
>> He and Chuck are OS bigots.  Keith might object, but they've been the
>> Bush/Cheney of clc during the Bush/Cheney years, with the exception that
>> while Chuck's C isn't far from George Bush's management skills, that is,
>> always wrong, Keith does not have the heart of darkness that is Cheney's.
>> What's more, Keith does not confuse paranoia with patriotism, greed with
>> commerce, militarism with courage, and Keith can skillfully manipulate
>> code, as opposed to lying about it, screwing it up, and then leaking it.
> [...]
> 
> I'm sure that made some kind of sense in your head, but I have no idea
> what you're trying to say.  If you'd care to try again without the
> political metaphors, I might or might not comment.

Well, a comparing to Cheney amounts to defamation unless you eat your
young.  Over the years, I've had serial lapses in civility, for which I
apologize.

I can't seem to help it with the fat jokes, like I can't help making fun of
english cuisine or whatever oxymoron that is.
-- 
Frank

My father grew up in the Great Depression - his mother's.
~~ Al Franken

jameskuyper said:

<snip>
 
> Chuck's pretty hard to defend on just about any issue.

I'm not even going to try.

> if you think that KT or RH are bigoted against Windows I'd like to
> see citations supporting that claim.

I'm afraid I can't help you there. I will not pretend to be MS's 
biggest fan, but I have put on record several times in the past 
that, from a /programming/ perspective, I find the MS Win32 C API 
to be just about the most pleasant C GUI I've ever used - powerful, 
effective, and *simple* (believe it or not) once you've got your 
head round the paradigm of event-driven programming. (COM, on the 
other hand, is a mess. Don't talk to me about COM.)

The accusation of bigotry does not surprise me, however. I don't 
know why it is, but some people have a very strange idea of the way 
I think. For example, I am often accused of being a net-cop, but I 
think if you do the research you'll find that nowadays my 
discussions about topic are limited to an occasional redirection 
and an occasional lobby for *broadening* the topic.

I remember getting my wrist slapped for trying to discuss 
message-cracking because I omitted to supply two or three macros - 
e.g. #define LRESULT - that would have made the code at leat 
/compilable/ on any C compiler. (I made the mistake of thinking 
people could figure those out for themselves.)

I /still/ enjoy programming for Windows, and in fact my current 
project is a Windows project (although on this occasion I've had to 
resort to the bulldozer of C++ Builder because the trowel of Win32 
API would just take too long).

The fact that I don't generally discuss Windows programming *here* 
is not because I'm bigoted against Windows but because this group 
is for C programming. I recognise and observe that convention 
because that's the wish of the majority of this group's users, as 
far as I can tell. So, when I wish to discuss Windows programming, 
I use a different newsgroup. I don't use it very often, but when I 
need it, it's there.

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Forged article? See 
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On 2 June, 01:01, Franken Sense <fr...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
> > Franken Sense wrote:

<snip>

> >> ... =A0In my opinion, [Keith Thompson's] worst
> >> moments are when he is a partisan with language purity ...
>
> > What in the world to you mean by "language purity"? I don't think he's
> > ever suggested that there's anything wrong with writing code in other
> > languages, or code that depends upon implementation-specific features;
> > all he's done is suggest that there are other forums where it's easier
> > to get good answers to questions about such code.

read and note well

> > He's got a pretty accurate understanding of what the standard does and
> > does not say, and will object if someone says something about standard
> > C which disagrees with his understanding (unless they back their
> > statements up with citations that he finds convincing). But if that's
> > what you mean by being a "partisan with language purity", I can't see
> > anything wrong with it. Objecting to that seems to me about as
> > reasonable as objecting to someone for being a "partisan for truth in
> > advertising", or a "partisan for accurate weights and measures".
>
> He and Chuck are OS bigots.

Keith is an OS bigot? What evidence do you have for this?
Can you point me to posts where he shows this trait?

I've known chuck to use terms like "Winders" which I suppose
implies he doesn't like windows (and possibly, that he can speak
British).

> =A0Keith might object, but

<snip reference to US politics>

right, so that made no sense.


> There's a fault line between us windows cats and people like Heathfield.

Richard programs windows. I think he's said quite nice things about
the Windows API. If he hasn't then I will. (though the One True GUI
was the original MAC ROM).


> My idea of portability is to put the OS on the machine in Saudi Arabia, a=
nd
> because you have so many things guaranteed to be true from windows, then
> you can write to that target; well that's portability as opposed to
> thinking the code would need to run on a clicker.
>
> I find it odd that I find myself "purer" from a C perspective than Richar=
d,
> with his commitment to regressive standards.
> // I'm just commenting.

you have a funny definition of "pure". My experience is that code
you never expected to be ported sometimes gets ported.

I agree toaster code isn't going to run on a cray.

But I've seen both ends of comms protocol use a common
code base and one end was Z80 and the other Sun (the sun did
other stuff).


--
Nick Keighley

> Infinitely many bits doesn't give you "100% accuracy".  You will
> only be able to represent the algebraic numbers.

Sure, if you use one of those old-fashioned implementations that only
has aleph-null-bit floating-point.  Any decent modern implementation
should provide at least aleph-one bits.
            (Bill Pursell and Keith Thompson clc)

Richard Bos wrote:
> Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Adios, amigos.
> 
> Don't worry, you'll be back, Merrill/George/James.
> 
> Under, if I've called correctly, at least the sixth different nym.
> 
> Richard

Franken Sense
Larry Gates
Ron Ford
Howard Jeagermeister
Richard Nixon
george@example.invalid
Gerry Ford
Lane Straatman
Wade Ward

Franken Sense wrote:

> My first question was how to post.

And, previously, Franken Sense wrote:

> It got me thinking back to when I started posting several years ago.  My
> first response on usenet was from Keith, who wrote, "please don't
> top-post," which I was prone to do using Outlook Express.

In the context of the second quote, it wasn't entirely
clear but the implication was that you found Keith's
response inappropriate.  I find that a bit odd if
he was responding to a question about how to post.

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:

> Franken Sense wrote:
>> In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of jameskuyper Did Inscribe:
>>
>>> Franken Sense wrote:
> [Re: Keith Thompson]
>>>> ...  In my opinion, his worst
>>>> moments are when he is a partisan with language purity ...
>>>
>>> What in the world to you mean by "language purity"?
> ...
>> He and Chuck are OS bigots.
> ...
>> There's a fault line between us windows cats and people like Heathfield.
> 
> It's not entirely clear what you're saying (as is often the case with
> your messages). However, I'll assume that these are connected
> statements, despite the large amount of bad political analogies that
> I've snipped out from between them. I assume that the OS that you
> think Keith and Chuck are bigoted against is WIndows, and that the
> fault line between you and Heathfield probably means that you think
> he's an OS bigot too.
> 
> Chuck's pretty hard to defend on just about any issue. if you think
> that KT or RH are bigoted against Windows I'd like to see citations
> supporting that claim. I don't remember any such behavior. I remember
> a great many messages objecting to OS-specific questions being asked
> and answered here, rather than in the more appropriate and more
> helpful OS-specific newsgroups - but if that happened more often for
> Windows than for other OSs, it's only because it's one of the most
> widely used OSs, not because of any hint of bias that they have shown.
> 
> I just did a Google search and looked at the 10 most recent messages
> from KT and RH on c.l.c that contained the word Windows, and didn't
> see the slightest bit of bigotry being expressed. On the other hand,
> two of the three messages that Google lists for you containing the
> word "Windows" are critical of it. I wouldn't consider you an anti-
> Windows bigot on the basis of those two criticisms, but they
> constitute far more supporting evidence than I could find against the
> other two people.

Let me take it in reverse order.  I've never had any flare-up with Richard
about OS stuff.  With him, my point was there might be a values and
semantic gulf between him and those of us who are tethered to windows.

As for Keith and Chuck being Butch and Cassidy, well maybe you read that
differently, but a few years back, Chuck wasn't wrong all the time and more
respected than he is now.  There was a whole gang of them that used to ride
together and derail my every windows-related train.  Typically with
OS-related original posts, Keith would say to both types (unix versus
windows) to find OS related ng's, but he would offer help to the former,
mostly briefly, while telling windows folks to find another ng and giving
no forwarding address.

Just for windows folks who are looking for a good ng, this comes
recommended: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32

are we vadarchi
-- 
Frank

It's the Power of the Almighty, the Splendor of Nature, and then you.
~~ Al Franken

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of Richard Heathfield Did Inscribe:

> The fact that I don't generally discuss Windows programming *here* 
> is not because I'm bigoted against Windows but because this group 
> is for C programming. I recognise and observe that convention 
> because that's the wish of the majority of this group's users, as 
> far as I can tell. So, when I wish to discuss Windows programming, 
> I use a different newsgroup. I don't use it very often, but when I 
> need it, it's there.

Which one do you use?
-- 
Frank

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
~~ Al Franken

Franken Sense wrote:
....
> Let me take it in reverse order.  I've never had any flare-up with Richard
> about OS stuff.  With him, my point was there might be a values and
> semantic gulf between him and those of us who are tethered to windows.

The indications are that he uses Windows, and likes many aspects of
it; he's just not tethered to it, the way you are. You might want to
consider whether you can untether yourself - freedom to choose is a
wonderful thing.

> As for Keith and Chuck being Butch and Cassidy, well maybe you read that
> differently, but a few years back, Chuck wasn't wrong all the time and more
> respected than he is now. ...

Very hard to imagine!

> ...  There was a whole gang of them that used to ride
> together and derail my every windows-related train.

I don't see anything wrong with that; OS-specific issues should be
discussed where you can find experts in that OS, aand not bother
people who have no interest in that OS. However, whether you agree or
disagree with the appropriateness of such behavior, it  would only be
an indication of OS bigotry if they treated messages about other OSs
differently.  You failed to claim this - was that an oversight? Or
were you simply so annoyed that they attacked your messages, that you
didn't pay any attention to whether or not they were equal-opportunity
attackers?

> ...  Typically with
> OS-related original posts, Keith would say to both types (unix versus
> windows) to find OS related ng's, but he would offer help to the former,
> mostly briefly, while telling windows folks to find another ng and giving
> no forwarding address.

I'm not sure how true that is, but it would be entirely reasonable
behavior for someone who knew more about Unix than than about windows;
just like myself. It's not in itself a sign of bigotry, just more
familiarity with one OS than with another. Having spent the last 13
years programming exclusively on Irix/Linux machines at work, I'd be
overwhelming more familiar with Irix and Linux than with Windows as a
programming environment, even if my home desktop were a Windows
machine.

jameskuyper said:

> Franken Sense wrote:
> ...
>> Let me take it in reverse order.  I've never had any flare-up
>> with Richard
>> about OS stuff.  With him, my point was there might be a values
>> and semantic gulf between him and those of us who are tethered to
>> windows.
> 
> The indications are that he uses Windows, and likes many aspects
> of it; he's just not tethered to it, the way you are.

My principal development and "office" machine, so to speak, runs 
Linux. I use a Windows machine when developing Windows programs, 
but mostly for portable stuff I use the Linux box. I'm not tethered 
to either of these, though, and have used a fair range of other 
OSen in the past. Right now, however, I am using Windows (or at 
least I will be, after I've posted this article!) because I'm 
writing some Windows code.

My opinion of Windows is split into two: the Win32 API, and 
everything else. I can't praise the Win32 API enough. I think it's 
really cool. Not perfect, of course, but pretty amazingly good. As 
for everything else... well, it's usable, and that's all I'm really 
prepared to say on the matter. But it is not by accident that I use 
Linux on my main "office" machine.

> You might
> want to consider whether you can untether yourself - freedom to
> choose is a wonderful thing.
> 
>> As for Keith and Chuck being Butch and Cassidy, well maybe you
>> read that differently, but a few years back, Chuck wasn't wrong
>> all the time and more respected than he is now. ...
> 
> Very hard to imagine!

Yes. Nevertheless, it's actually more or less true.

<snip>

>> ...  Typically with
>> OS-related original posts, Keith would say to both types (unix
>> versus windows) to find OS related ng's, but he would offer help
>> to the former, mostly briefly, while telling windows folks to
>> find another ng and giving no forwarding address.
> 
> I'm not sure how true that is, but it would be entirely reasonable
> behavior for someone who knew more about Unix than than about
> windows; just like myself. It's not in itself a sign of bigotry,
> just more familiarity with one OS than with another.

It's also why I tend to be a little stretchier with the topic when 
it comes to Windows than when it comes to Linux - I do actually 
know a fair bit more about Windows programming than I do about 
Linux. Does that make me an anti-Linux bigot? It's a strange 
anti-Linux bigot that chooses to use Linux as his principal work 
machine.

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Forged article? See 
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Su6dnf27ivw6zrvXnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@bt.com...

> My opinion of Windows is split into two: the Win32 API, and
> everything else. I can't praise the Win32 API enough. I think it's
> really cool. Not perfect, of course, but pretty amazingly good. As

I found it completely impossible.

Take for example the Toolbar control of the graphics system in Win32. To use 
this you need to learn about 130 message and notification codes, 75 style 
codes, and the details of 14 different structs specific to toolbars.

The trouble is every other control has it's own sets of message codes, style 
codes, functions, structs and macros, all different even though many do the 
same thing.

(One of the simpler controls, a Tooltip, only needs 40 message codes, 5 
structs and 7 styles to learn. And (iirc) can only be applied to toolbar 
controls. When I implemented a similar feature, it needed the user to know 
just one function:

 tooltip(btn, text)  to set the text
 tooltip(btn) to retrieve the text

And it worked for any control. (In fact it just worked, unlike the MS 
version which I gave up with after two days' struggle.))

You find the same pattern across Win32: File management (eg. open, close, 
read and write files) includes over 100 different functions, 40 structs, and 
50 enumerations. Yet none of these will handle directories, or filename 
parsing! C manages memory with malloc, free and realloc, win32 requires 80 
functions!

MS just have no idea how to create any interface that is simple, concise, 
and consistent.

-- 
Bart 

"BartC" <bartc@freeuk.com> writes:

> MS just have no idea how to create any interface that is simple,
> concise, and consistent.

My favorite example is process creation.  In Windows, to create a
process you call the CreateProcess function, which takes 10
arguments, some of which are pointers to complex structures.  In
Unix, you call the fork function, which takes 0 arguments.
-- 
"Programmers have the right to be ignorant of many details of your code
 and still make reasonable changes."
--Kernighan and Plauger, _Software Tools_

In article <JJxVl.37415$OO7.12309@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
BartC <bartc@freeuk.com> wrote:
....
>MS just have no idea how to create any interface that is simple, concise, 
>and consistent.

Nor any incentive to.  Their way of doing things is deeply ingrained in
their business model.  And you can't argue with the success of that
business model.

On Jun 3, 9:54=A0am, Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> "BartC" <ba...@freeuk.com> writes:
> > MS just have no idea how to create any interface that is simple,
> > concise, and consistent.
>
> My favorite example is process creation. =A0In Windows, to create a
> process you call the CreateProcess function, which takes 10
> arguments, some of which are pointers to complex structures. =A0In
> Unix, you call the fork function, which takes 0 arguments.

And yet I have found value in each of the ten arguments at times.

I am operating system neutral.  I program on Windows more often, but I
also program quite a bit on OpenVMS, Linux, Solaris, AIX, MVS, z/OS
and many other operating systems:
http://www.connx.com/products/connx-matrix.html

I don't think we need to choose camps and stake out forts and fight
for a winner.

Every operating system is used to provide system services.  These
services are used to solve business problems and academic problems.
Programmers write tools to help solve these problems.  Some tools are
open source.  Some tools are closed source.  Some licenses are
restrictive.  Some licences mean that there is no license (e.g. public
domain).  I find every approach interesting and useful.  There are
times when I will choose something from each and every box because I
feel that it offers the best solution.

Not sure what this has to do with C, other than that C is a tool I use
on just about every operating system.  But that has little topicality
that I can imagine.

John Doe <jdoe@example.net> wrote:

> Richard Bos wrote:
> > Franken Sense <frank@example.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Adios, amigos.
> > 
> > Don't worry, you'll be back, Merrill/George/James.
> > 
> > Under, if I've called correctly, at least the sixth different nym.
> 
> Franken Sense
> Larry Gates
> Ron Ford
> Howard Jeagermeister
> Richard Nixon
> george@example.invalid
> Gerry Ford
> Lane Straatman
> Wade Ward

I'm not sure that the Nixon and Ford ones weren't (failed) jokes, but
yes, those. _And_ Merrill&Michelle; and possibly more. How anyone can
take him (her? it?) seriously, I don't know.

Richard

"BartC" <bartc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message 
> 
> > My opinion of Windows is split into two: the Win32 API, and
> > everything else. I can't praise the Win32 API enough. I think it's
> > really cool. Not perfect, of course, but pretty amazingly good. As
> 
> I found it completely impossible.

It's not _that_ bad. It's bad, all right, but it's not impossible.

> Take for example the Toolbar control of the graphics system in Win32. To use 
> this you need to learn about 130 message and notification codes, 75 style 
> codes, and the details of 14 different structs specific to toolbars.

Nope. What you need to do is learn the basics, and have a reference
(MSDN will do) handy for the rest.

> You find the same pattern across Win32: File management (eg. open, close, 
> read and write files) includes over 100 different functions, 40 structs, and 
> 50 enumerations. Yet none of these will handle directories, or filename 
> parsing! C manages memory with malloc, free and realloc, win32 requires 80 
> functions!
> 
> MS just have no idea how to create any interface that is simple, concise, 
> and consistent.

True. Elegant it's not. In fact, MS's habits are even less elegant than
GNU's, and that's bloody going some. But impossible it isn't. Just
smegging ugly.

Richard