Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 07:41:12 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <100ists$2eaej$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100hieb$261k5$1@dont-email.me> <100hs85$27qbn$1@dont-email.me> <100i14o$28o7d$1@dont-email.me> <100ia33$2ae8t$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 23:41:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0d5a6b4b43d1a9768c38cdc271b55e1";
	logging-data="2566611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18881nRO587g3i6UH3sj/20kwL5A6gi2nc="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fw3Zer+ugf1yio0dlSIRay69Cho=
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Priority: 3
Bytes: 7001

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
news:100ia33$2ae8t$1@dont-email.me...

> Then why do think that something might depend on someone's "definition
> of C" ?  The definition of C is clear - it is what the international
> standard says it is.  You can have other C-like languages, but they are
> not C.

Kaz has answered all of these questions to my satisfaction,
so I won't add anything further.

> > And in another corner, there are people who claim that I
> > am at fault for not making "my" compiler (a slight variation
> > of gcc 3.2.3) run in under 16 MiB of memory.
>
> Now you are stretching credulity.

What do you mean?

I was told non-stop that it was "my fault" that I needed
more than the 16 MiB that was addressable by a S/370
and that I should "fix" "my" compiler. I was instead
"fixing" the architecture so that gcc could operate without
code changes.

> > I understand where these people are coming from.
> >
> > And I can see the alternative described by that Jeff article
> > I referenced.
>
> Few people click on random links.  If you have something to say, say it.

Basically the software industry is a joke. The advances have
all been done by hardware engineers.

> I never knew Ritchie personally, and can only make guesses as to what he
> might think or say.  I would, however, be very surprised if he
> considered C90 to be "perfect" or in any sense complete, or that he
> disapproved of the C standards committee moving forward with the
> language.

He probably wouldn't disapprove of Rust being created either.

But I've actually seen Rust. No way this is a replacement for
assembler.

C I see as a replacement for assembler.

Anything past C90 is just pie in the sky let's add the kitchen
sink too and an abomination too.

If I saw people coding int_fast32_t instead of int32_t, it
would have some passing resemblance to C90.

It isn't remotely a passing resemblence.

> I expect that like most of us, he would like some parts of
> each new standard, and dislike other parts - some parts he would find
> useful, and others not so much.  And he would be happy to accept that
> the language is not for him personally - it's fine to have features that
> are of use and interest to other people.

No it isn't. Because then it becomes a too-high bar for
compiler vendors and library vendors and the computers
themselves to reach.

> > Regardless, I intend to compete with the ISO committee, and
> > not so much start from scratch, as start from C90.
>
> You don't lack ambition!

Competing with ISO is not difficult.

Defeating ISO is the ambitious thing. I didn't say I was trying
to win the competition. I'm not specifically saying I don't
want to win though. Note that I am also attempting to become
the US president, without being an American citizen or even
going to America. People keep saying it is impossible, because
the rules say xyz, and I point out how the rules also say I can
hold a Convention of the States to change those rules - all I
need is a fairly uniform 51% support of the American people,
and wait a few years for the appropriate elections, and it will
happen.

I didn't say that I'm expecting to get that 51%. But nor did
Trump get that in 2020. That's always been the challenge - 51%.

I'm also trying to become Chancellor of Germany without
going to Germany or learning German.

Not expecting to win that one either. But there's nothing
physically stopping me from trying.

> > My branch may not appeal to a majority, but I'm not particularly
> > trying to appeal to a majority. I'm interested in appealing to the
> > people who I work with (e.g. author of pdld). And I'm also
> > interested in technical guidance from the majority who likely
> > have more technical skills than me, regardless of whether they
> > agree with my approach/goals or not (spoiler: they don't).
>
> I have no problem with giving technical advice (if I have any that I
> think will be useful - I work with a significantly different type of
> programming, however).  But I think you'd get on a lot better if you
> said you were trying to write a C90 library of functions for directory
> access,

That's not possible. There is no such concept in C90. That's
the problem.

> and dropped the bizarre doomsday philosophy.

That's a joke.

> Choose C90 for
> maximal portability, or personal preference - that's fine.  Trying to
> convince other people that C90 is somehow "perfect"

I don't think I made that claim.

> while C99 is a
> "complete and utter joke" is not going to get you much technical help.

I don't see what bearing my opinion on C99 (or politics,
or anything) has on a technical discussion of C90, but
so be it.

> Telling us that you are doing all this to be "apocalypse-ready" simply
> brands you as a delusional nutcase.

I personally don't care if I'm talking to Pol Pot himself.

> And while I think delusional
> nutcases (as long as they are non-violent) have as much right to get
> technical answers as the next person, it really does distract from the
> C-related questions you have.

Sounds like some people are easily distracted. I just snip
the bits that I'm not interested in.

Same as any debate anywhere. And verbal discussions too.
I don't really care if people swear at me. I first parse their
sentence into ASCII text (so that I can continue the
discussion online without interruption), strip out swearing etc,
scanning for a technical point.

And when the technical counter-arguments reach zero bytes,
I laugh. Works for me. I do an OOB check before any
part of the conversation becomes face to face though. And
if the OOB isn't in my favor I tell them to take it online, so
that my style of argument doesn't need to change.

BFN. Paul.