Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:00:27 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <va75ob$dfb0$2@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>
 <20240412094809.811@kylheku.com> <87il0mm94y.fsf@tudado.org>
 <way-20240413091747@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <87il0lldf8.fsf@tudado.org>
 <choices-20240413123957@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <v9lm2k$12qhv$1@dont-email.me> <v9m4gd$14scu$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240815182717.189@kylheku.com> <v9npls$1fjus$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9t204$2dofg$1@dont-email.me> <va28pi$3dldm$1@dont-email.me>
 <va2ro9$3gd7v$1@dont-email.me> <va2vt0$3h3gj$1@dont-email.me>
 <va44rh$3p1l6$1@dont-email.me> <va45gv$3pilh$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4b0i$3q4g0$2@dont-email.me> <va5u2q$1uhn$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:00:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e19e10a6f493b0642935e2bdebcb364b";
	logging-data="441696"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19r3YXTXT7eYCRlpejITyqU63fDfSwUtd4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VZMPypVtBx7nWcO+iaT/kOO6Ffo=
In-Reply-To: <va5u2q$1uhn$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3357

On 22/08/2024 01:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:11:46 +0200, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> On 21/08/2024 09:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 09:26:41 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> And you don't need to know anything about Linux, UNIX or POSIX to
>>>> program in C.
>>>
>>> I think the point has been made on comp.lang.c more than once, that C
>>> without POSIX can be a very dull language indeed ...
>>
>> It was wrong on comp.lang.c, and it is wrong here.  Proof by repeated
>> assertion is not valid.
> 
> It came up repeatedly because of repeated examples where it was true.

It takes but one single counter-example to invalidate general claims 
like this.  And for almost the entire branch of small-systems embedded 
programming, code is mostly written in C, POSIX is utterly irrelevant, 
and the work is not dull.

Then there are those that - wisely or unwisely - program in C for 
Windows, without POSIX.

Then there are those that program in C and use libraries, abstractions 
or other layers between their own code and the underlying POSIX systems.

Then there are those that write portable C code that does not depend on 
any OS at all.

I have no statistics, but I'd imagine that it's actually only a small 
fraction of C programmers that have direct regular contact with POSIX in 
most of their regular work.  C coding is not usually about how you 
access a file, or how you start a thread - it's about what you do with 
the file contents and the code that runs in the thread.

So - you are still wrong, even if others have said the same thing as you 
did.