Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 19:09:38 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <vvlcsi$2tu1m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <8634enhcui.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vsph6b$ce6m$5@dont-email.me> <86ldsdfocs.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <20250406162607.0000657a@yahoo.com> <867c3xfhkk.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vvl45l$2rt1b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <tNoTP.8395$rdEd.658@fx39.iad>
 <vvl5hj$2sb38$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvl6qb$2sicf$1@dont-email.me> <vvl8fi$2t30c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 19:09:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38d47131595a681772cae6fdb13a63d2";
	logging-data="3078198"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lerhvU+R0Ge7xEPfcZp63TrdX6zpi9Ko="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NLq9XcOcDOhfF17C0DBkZoQLvfw=
In-Reply-To: <vvl8fi$2t30c$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5006

On 09/05/2025 17:54, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 09.05.2025 17:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 09/05/2025 16:04, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 09.05.2025 um 17:01 schrieb Scott Lurndal:
>>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Am 06.04.2025 um 17:14 schrieb Tim Rentsch:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My impression was that "defer", or something very much like
>>>>>> it, is being considered for inclusion in a future C standard. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> With C++ you can have defer without extending the language.
>>>>
>>>> This, however is comp.lang.c.
>>>
>>> I'm just trying to make it clear that C lacks convenience
>>> and  productivity on every level.
>>
>> Then use something convenient and productive. But please confine your
>> discussions of your chosen alternative to
>> comp.lang.your.chosen.alternative instead of dragging them into
>> comp.lang.c, where we discuss C.
>>
>>> C folks simply don't want
>>> to abandon their minimalism paradigm, which continues to
>>> make the language very difficult to use.
>>
>> Then do by all means use something easier. But please confine your
>> discussions of your chosen alternative to
>> comp.lang.your.chosen.alternative instead of dragging them into
>> comp.lang.c, where we discuss C.
> 
> (That post sounds and is written like a mantra. Gee!)
> 
> Since some folks feel comfortable in their "C" bubble I understand
> that these people might feel annoyed by such posts.
> 
> But showing deficiencies (in "C") and providing counter-examples or
> alternatives from other languages [as done here] should be welcome.
> (IMO. YMMV, of course.)
> 

Comparisons between C and other languages can certainly be on-topic for 
a C group.  And deficiencies of C are as topical as the language's good 
points.

However, Bonita's post here - like almost all Bonita's posts in this 
group - are not helpful or topical, but merely trolls of "C++ is vastly 
better than C - look at this line noise to see what you can do in C++".

Consider this about Bonita's post :

1. It was full of code in a non-topical language.

2. The code could not compile without additional headers, so is specific 
to the poster's machine.

3. No one asked for or showed any interest in having C++ code for a 
"defer" feature.  (Posting non-C code can be appropriate if other people 
want to see it.)

4. Everyone familiar with or interested in C++ will already know that 
you can make a "defer" feature in C++.  Any reasonably competent C++ 
programmer could make such a template class.

5. Everyone familiar with C already knows of the existence of C++, and 
knows where to find out more about it if it is of interest.

6. The post was about a "defer" feature, which was not in any way the 
topic of the thread.

7. The post was a reply to a month-old dead thread.

8. The poster has made vast numbers of such posts in this group, and has 
consequently been killfilled by many regulars here.


It is not at all surprising that people find Bonita's posts in 
comp.lang.c annoying, and would be happier if they were restricted to 
comp.lang.c++.  Most people just ignore them, others use killfiles, and 
some people optimistically try to persuade Bonita not to write such 
posts.  I'd be surprised if there was anyone who actually thought they 
were a positive contribution to the group.


As a general principle, I agree with you that languages other than C can 
at times be relevant and interesting in this group - but in this 
specific case, I see no value in Bonita's post.