fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
> imo you write a lot of nonsenses in this thread (many belifs not much real)
> to teh extent i somewhat feel sorry i stated the question - i forgot that quite
> usulally people when some wtate soem question not give answer but produce
> a stream of nonsenses.. i thought maybe i will learn something on this
> rust maybe (this one i cant learn) instead nonsenses on c..but well you may
> continue ofc

First of all, I guess you are some kind of a programmer, but
you have serious problem with your spelling. Your posts are
absolutely awful to read. Try spell checking of some kind
and learn to write proper English.

Second, what exactly is the point of your emotional outburst?

If you think that I write "nonsense", then please point out the
errors. It is incredibly stupid to rant about "nonsense" without
providing any kind of reasoning. Your post is just worthless garbage.

br,
KK

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> Or, e.g., Excel.

Can you create Eclipse using Excel macros? Or Jetty?

Is it really a sensible comparison between Excel and Java?

I don't think so.

> FWIW, I think the modern trend is just to accept memory leaks as a part of
> life. Every web browser I've ever used leaks memory like a sieve; they
> always need to be periodically re-started.

Some memory leaks are not serious, some of them are.
Harmless ones need not be fixed, the serious ones
usually must be fixed.

Do you accept serious memory leaks in kernels too,
just periodically rebooting your server and being
happy about it?

I have encountered a serious memory leak in Digital
Unix kernel. Or maybe it was called Tru64 then, I
cannot remember.

The server had to be rebooted once every morning.
Guess what? The Digital Unix developers fixed the
memory leak. They did not accept "memory leaks as
a part of life".

I can't understand why some people are so
attached to some technology that it becomes
flawless in their eyes. There simply cannot
be anything in C that is worth criticizing.

br,
KK

piątek, 14 lipca 2023 o 14:29:41 UTC+2 Kalevi Kolttonen napisał(a):
> fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > imo you write a lot of nonsenses in this thread (many belifs not much real)
> > to teh extent i somewhat feel sorry i stated the question - i forgot that quite
> > usulally people when some wtate soem question not give answer but produce
> > a stream of nonsenses.. i thought maybe i will learn something on this
> > rust maybe (this one i cant learn) instead nonsenses on c..but well you may
> > continue ofc
> First of all, I guess you are some kind of a programmer, but
> you have serious problem with your spelling. Your posts are
> absolutely awful to read. Try spell checking of some kind
> and learn to write proper English.
>
> Second, what exactly is the point of your emotional outburst?
>
> If you think that I write "nonsense", then please point out the
> errors. It is incredibly stupid to rant about "nonsense" without
> providing any kind of reasoning. Your post is just worthless garbage.
>
you just produce a lot of nonreal belifs and not real points - in discussions here
many people with time i guess more used to real points.. i dont want to talk on
c here as i talked on it for 2 decades..the question was more like if ruest can really outhrone
c and say if there are some real points /reasons related to that

howewer crowd of programmers often works like you do - its more driven by blifs and
nonsenses (as in kase of pony++) than real points..so lack of real points may not be deciding
sadly

kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:

> Writing portable C code can also be challenging
> as it also requires lots of knowledge about
> C standards. I am not saying it cannot be done,
> just that it is not easy.

Not really. As with any other programming language, you only need to
posess knowledge of the systems that your programs will practically run
on.

C simply provides you with the opportunity to run your program on a very
wide assortment of computer systems.

> With languages like Python or Java, you don't have
> to manually take care of memory management, or worry
> about corrupting memory with incorrect pointer
> usage. Portability is not difficult to achieve,
> either. They are much safer and easier to use
> than C.

But, by writing your programs in Python or Java, you immediately exclude
the possibility of porting your programs to many of the systems that can
run C. For example, Java requires int to be 32 bits wide, two's
complement, with no trap representations or padding bits.

If you are indifferent to running your C programs anywhere else, they
can be written with the same assumptions in mind, while still remaining
conformant to the Standard. C however provides a fighting chance for
programmers who wish to rise above those limitations to write truly
portable strictly conforming code, for the Burroughs Large Systems, or
even the Lisp Machine.

kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:

> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux
> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many,
> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix
> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too.

Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are
more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable to
the C implementations that they have been ported to.

This kind of conformance is not very difficult, and does not require you
to language-lawyer your way through standards documents.

fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
> you just produce a lot of nonreal belifs and not real points - in discussions here
> many people with time i guess more used to real points.. i dont want to talk on
> c here as i talked on it for 2 decades..the question was more like if ruest can really outhrone
> c and say if there are some real points /reasons related to that

If you want to know whether Rust can become more
succesful than C and even replace it, then the
feature sets of those two languages must be compared
in some meaningful way. Therefore it is impossible
not to talk about the C language in the context of
your thread.

One must know the weaknesses and strengths of
both languages.

> howewer crowd of programmers often works like you do -
> its more driven by blifs and nonsenses (as in kase
> of pony++) than real points..so lack of real points
> may not be deciding sadly

In my previous post I requested that you would provide
some kind of reasoning to justify your claims. It did
not help much.

But I am glad you used spell checking. Your post was
easier to read now.

br,
KK

piątek, 14 lipca 2023 o 15:01:56 UTC+2 Kalevi Kolttonen napisał(a):
> fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > you just produce a lot of nonreal belifs and not real points - in discussions here
> > many people with time i guess more used to real points.. i dont want to talk on
> > c here as i talked on it for 2 decades..the question was more like if ruest can really outhrone
> > c and say if there are some real points /reasons related to that
> If you want to know whether Rust can become more
> succesful than C and even replace it, then the
> feature sets of those two languages must be compared
> in some meaningful way. Therefore it is impossible
> not to talk about the C language in the context of
> your thread.
>
> One must know the weaknesses and strengths of
> both languages.
> > howewer crowd of programmers often works like you do -
> > its more driven by blifs and nonsenses (as in kase
> > of pony++) than real points..so lack of real points
> > may not be deciding sadly
> In my previous post I requested that you would provide
> some kind of reasoning to justify your claims. It did
> not help much.
>
> But I am glad you used spell checking. Your post was
> easier to read now.
>
youre clearly insane you said one need to compare points on both languages and thus need to talk on c but you dont said nothing on rust and no real points on c.. i firgt how insane people are (not used forums for years except publishing some of my remarks/notices)

On 7/14/23 08:29, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
....
> First of all, I guess you are some kind of a programmer, but you have
> serious problem with your spelling. Your posts are absolutely awful to
> read. Try spell checking of some kind
> and learn to write proper English.
>
> Second, what exactly is the point of your emotional outburst?
> If you think that I write "nonsense", then please point out the
> errors. It is incredibly stupid to rant about "nonsense" without
> providing any kind of reasoning. Your post is just worthless garbage.

fir is uninterested in being understood. He despises all who fail to
understand him despite his refusal to put any effort into writing
understandable text. He apparently posts primarily for his own amusement
- he often posts new messages as responses to his previous messages, and
it is very often the case that his responses are the only ones he gets.
That doesn't bother him.

It's your decision to make, but I recommend that you put him in your
killfile.

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>
>> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux
>> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many,
>> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix
>> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too.
>
> Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are
> more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable to
> the C implementations that they have been ported to.

You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil
that no C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the
programmers must know enough to avoid it.

Since you seem to be confident about your claim, is it possible
for you to describe what aspects of Postfix are non-corforming
C code?

Speaking of MTAs, Sendmail was/is portable enough so that it runs
on practically every modern and not-so-modern UNIX. This being
the case, one could assume that its C code must be very
standards compliant, no? What do you think?

br,
KK

fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:
> youre clearly insane

Oh yeah? Quite frankly, bro, you do not seem that
sane either. I will ignore your rants from now on.

> you said one need to compare points on both languages
> and thus need to talk on c

Unfortunately it has been a long time since Rust was
released. Back then I read about its feature set, but I
cannot remember that much anymore. I have never used Rust.

> but you dont said nothing on rust

False. I did say that Rust language is designed so
that Rust compilers are able to do more strict
compile-time checks than C compilers can. That
is one advantage that Rust has compared to C.

But I no longer remember the details.

> and no real points on c.. i firgt how insane
> people are (not used forums for years except publishing
> some of my remarks/notices)

Most of your threads consist of nothing but your
own replies to yourself. I guess the sane people
have killfiled you. I don't use killfiles, but like
I said, I will ignore your rants from now on.

Goodbye, "professor".

br,
KK

In article <u8rho3$188s$1@dont-email.me>,
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
....
>fir is uninterested in being understood. He despises all who fail to
>understand him despite his refusal to put any effort into writing
>understandable text. He apparently posts primarily for his own amusement

Isn't it true that most (all?) of us post for our own amusement?

I doubt many of us are getting paid (I'm not). I assume the ones that *are*
paid would be the ones working for Russian troll farms.

--
People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't fix
*all* of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure
cancer, so they'll go and vote for (more) cancer.

piątek, 14 lipca 2023 o 15:15:01 UTC+2 James Kuyper napisał(a):
> On 7/14/23 08:29, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
> ...
> > First of all, I guess you are some kind of a programmer, but you have
> > serious problem with your spelling. Your posts are absolutely awful to
> > read. Try spell checking of some kind
> > and learn to write proper English.
> >
> > Second, what exactly is the point of your emotional outburst?
> > If you think that I write "nonsense", then please point out the
> > errors. It is incredibly stupid to rant about "nonsense" without
> > providing any kind of reasoning. Your post is just worthless garbage.
> fir is uninterested in being understood. He despises all who fail to
> understand him despite his refusal to put any effort into writing
> understandable text. He apparently posts primarily for his own amusement
> - he often posts new messages as responses to his previous messages, and
> it is very often the case that his responses are the only ones he gets.
> That doesn't bother him.
>
> It's your decision to make, but I recommend that you put him in your
> killfile.

well ..their are not 'responses' - they're additions, something like edits in forums...besides its very good to divide some posts on parts and post it in parts..no answers no bother me..why it should?? its totally okay, i understand this is not a big group and soem branches of content not interest many people (liek im also not interested in many other)

my posts are readable, rarely you find real disambiguity..and se of that many people who write tiotal trash with proper interpunction compared to em who write real stuff with bad one (besides not using capitals and dots its oldschool net tradition i continue as i like it)

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> fir is uninterested in being understood. He despises all who fail to
> understand him despite his refusal to put any effort into writing
> understandable text. He apparently posts primarily for his own amusement
> - he often posts new messages as responses to his previous messages, and
> it is very often the case that his responses are the only ones he gets.
> That doesn't bother him.

Thanks, James. I just figured that out. Your observation
confirms perfectly what I see now.

> It's your decision to make, but I recommend that you put
> him in your killfile.

I have a desire to see the sad reality the way it is. I never
killfile anybody, but I fully understand why many people
do so. It makes life less annoying.

br,
KK

In article <u8ridq$1b4i$1@dont-email.me>,
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
....
>I don't use killfiles, but like
>I said, I will ignore your rants from now on.

Why don't you use killfiles? Some religious thing?

--
[Donald] Trump didn't have it all handed to him by his parents,
like Hillary Clinton did.

- Some dumb cluck in Ohio; featured in Michael Moore's "Trumpland" -

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> Why don't you use killfiles?

I never have and never will. I like to see the
sad reality the way it is. It is not fun but
at least I am aware of what is going on.

I use tin as my newsreader and fortunately
it is pretty easy to press K-key and mark
threads as read. Sometimes if I see certain
posters, I just mark their threads as read.

> Some religious thing?

No, I am not religious at all.

br,
KK

piątek, 14 lipca 2023 o 15:26:35 UTC+2 Kalevi Kolttonen napisał(a):
> fir <profes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > youre clearly insane
>
> Oh yeah? (...)
>
> Goodbye, "professor".
>

good luck in your nonsense... i will also try to keep far from it -it has much more sense to write
on real points

In article <u8rje8$1gfk$1@dont-email.me>,
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> Why don't you use killfiles?
>
>I never have and never will. I like to see the
>sad reality the way it is. It is not fun but
>at least I am aware of what is going on.
>
>I use tin as my newsreader and fortunately
>it is pretty easy to press K-key and mark
>threads as read. Sometimes if I see certain
>posters, I just mark their threads as read.

Actually, for better or worse, CLC is pretty well policed, so there isn't
that much need for a killfile here. There are a few garbage posters here,
such as "fir" and "olcott", and they are in my killfile. The rest, I
pretty much have the same attitude as you do. There are maybe one or two
that I actually select for (Tech note: In my newsreader, killing and
selecting are done via the same mechanism - the killfile) - such as Keith
Thompson, who is so fabulously insane, that I always enjoy reading his
stuff.

But, and here's where we part company, I also read quite a few alt groups,
which are not policed and where easily 3/4ths of the posts are simply
garbage. And, by garbage, I don't mean just stuff I disagree with or don't
want to read, I mean literally garbage (often in unintelligible character
sets). Dealing with those groups without using a killfile would just be
insane.

Final note: Whenever people say "I don't use a killfile", there's always a
touch of virtue signalling in it. Therefore, I cringe when I hear people
say those words. Just a heads up...

--
"The party of Lincoln has become the party of John Wilkes Booth."

- Carlos Alazraqui -

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:29:30 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <u8rho3$188s$1...@dont-email.me>,
> James Kuyper <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> ...
> >fir is uninterested in being understood. He despises all who fail to
> >understand him despite his refusal to put any effort into writing
> >understandable text. He apparently posts primarily for his own amusement
> Isn't it true that most (all?) of us post for our own amusement?

Many of us post responses to questions out of a sincere desire to be helpful to
the person posting the message, as well as to other people who may read it.
Sometimes we post out of a desire to be helpful to people who might be
confused by a message posted by someone else.

If any such motivations were behind fir's messages, he'd put more effort into
writing understandable messages.

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> - such as Keith Thompson, who is so fabulously insane, that
> I always enjoy reading his stuff.

During all these years I have never seen a single
sign of Keith Thompson's "insanity". On the contrary,
his posts are always informative and helpful.

You need a reality check, bro.

> Final note: Whenever people say "I don't use a killfile", there's always a
> touch of virtue signalling in it. Therefore, I cringe when I hear people
> say those words. Just a heads up...

Some people use killfiles, some do not. It makes
no difference from an ethical point of view.

br,
KK

In article <e63aea0c-76ee-4e60-93b2-e22fd996759cn@googlegroups.com>,
james...@alumni.caltech.edu <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
....
>Many of us post responses to questions out of a sincere desire to be
>helpful to the person posting the message, as well as to other people who
>may read it. Sometimes we post out of a desire to be helpful to people
>who might be confused by a message posted by someone else.

I get that that's the standard comeback to my assertion.
It may be true at some level, but in the end it all boils down to the same
thing. You post because it makes you feel good to do so.

As does fir.

>If any such motivations were behind fir's messages, he'd put more effort into
>writing understandable messages.

True.

--
Elect a clown, expect a circus.

On 14/07/2023 14:08, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> However, none of the code needs to be /widely/ portable. All targets
>> have 32-bit int, 8-bit char, either 32-bit or 64-bit pointers, use ASCII
>> basic character sets, and have many other aspects in common.
>
> I suppose one can argue pretty endlessly about the true
> meaning of "portable code". How many platforms must it run
> on in order to quality as portable? I think there is no
> single correct answer to that question.
>

Certainly "portable" has different meanings to different people.

> I don't know about other people's definitions, but I never
> thought that portable code would mean that it would run
> forever on absolutely every imaginable platform possible.
>
> It seems like a far-fetched, extremist position to take.

Actually, a good deal of C code can be written that is entirely portable
- that is, it relies on nothing but behaviour that is fully defined by
the C standards and does not depend on any implementation-dependent
behaviour. Few complete programs can be that flexible, but a lot of
code can be. And many programmers make a point of keeping their code
that portable unless they have particular reason to do otherwise.

Writing code that is close to maximally efficient on a wide range of
architectures can be difficult, or require a somewhat ugly or verbose
style (using types like "int_fast8_t" for efficiency on 8-bit devices as
well as big processors).

So I think it is often convenient to be able to make some basic
assumptions. If you are writing code that will run on a modern computer
(rather than a small embedded system, or something old or unusual) then
you can assume, for example, that "int" is 32-bit. For fully portable
code, if you know you need an integer type of 32-bit range, you must use
"long int", "int_least32_t", or use pre-processor directives and
<limits.h> to make a typedef for "my_32_bit_int", adapting to the
target. Plain "int" is usually more convenient.

>
> NetBSD has been known for great portability and it runs
> on quite many platforms. Those who claim that the portability
> of C code is "a myth" would do well to check out this page:
>
> http://www.netbsd.org/ports/
>

Linux supports a similar range of target processors (RISC-V and arm64
are notably missing from that list). But these processors are all
pretty similar - 32-bit or 64-bit, conventional stacks and pointers.

FreeRTOS, however, supports a significantly wider range from 8-bit to
32-bit devices. There are OS's for DSPs that are portable across
targets with different sizes of CHAR_BIT.

<https://www.freertos.org/RTOS_ports.html>

> To me, NetBSD kernel and userland software is a clear
> proof that carefully written C is indeed very portable.
>
> Pretty much the same can be said about Linux.
>

Writing C code that is portable to any POSIX-supporting target processor
is peanuts - you have to write pretty bad code to fail there.

(I am talking about portability across target processor here. API's,
libraries, system calls, and all the rest are a different matter.)

On 14/07/2023 16:39, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <e63aea0c-76ee-4e60-93b2-e22fd996759cn@googlegroups.com>,
> james...@alumni.caltech.edu <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> ...
>> Many of us post responses to questions out of a sincere desire to be
>> helpful to the person posting the message, as well as to other people who
>> may read it. Sometimes we post out of a desire to be helpful to people
>> who might be confused by a message posted by someone else.
>
> I get that that's the standard comeback to my assertion.
> It may be true at some level, but in the end it all boils down to the same
> thing. You post because it makes you feel good to do so.
>

There's a difference between posting for your own enjoyment, and posting
for your own amusement. None of us are paid to post here, so I expect
we all post because it makes us "feel good" on some level. But some
people here enjoy helping others, others enjoy a good debate, others
enjoy learning, some are just here for the chatter, and some enjoy
fighting, trolling, or letting their cat wander over their keyboard.
And of course some people post because they actually want help, or the
answer to a question! I probably fall into all of these categories at
times.

> As does fir.
>
>> If any such motivations were behind fir's messages, he'd put more effort into
>> writing understandable messages.
>
> True.
>

I think it is very difficult to figure out Fir's motivations - it's
rarely possible to make any sense of his posts at all. But it's quite
telling that he specifically does not want to talk about C, in the
thread he started in comp.lang.c.

On 14/07/2023 15:16, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>>
>>> No. Lots of C programs are quite portable. That includes e.g. Linux
>>> kernel, BSD kernels, PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix, and many,
>>> many other Unix daemons. PostgreSQL runs not only on Unix
>>> but even on Windows. Possibly OpenLDAP does, too.
>>
>> Yet none of these programs strictly conform to a Standard. They are
>> more or less conforming programs, meaning that they are acceptable to
>> the C implementations that they have been ported to.
>
> You could well be right. But invoking UB is something so evil
> that no C or C++ program must ever do it, meaning that the
> programmers must know enough to avoid it.
>

Non-portable code just means it relies on implementation-dependent
behaviour, or extensions or other documented features of a target and/or
compiler. Undefined behaviour is a different matter - I think it is
best to view invoking UB as no more and no less than a bug in the code.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> Non-portable code just means it relies on implementation-dependent
> behaviour, or extensions or other documented features of a target and/or
> compiler. Undefined behaviour is a different matter - I think it is
> best to view invoking UB as no more and no less than a bug in the code.

Of course it is a bug. But in addition it is at least somewhat
related to code portability as well.

Your code containing UB can work fine in the environment that you
use, but it might not work when you compile it elsewhere.

br,
KK

On 14/07/2023 18:20, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Non-portable code just means it relies on implementation-dependent
>> behaviour, or extensions or other documented features of a target and/or
>> compiler. Undefined behaviour is a different matter - I think it is
>> best to view invoking UB as no more and no less than a bug in the code.
>
> Of course it is a bug. But in addition it is at least somewhat
> related to code portability as well.
>

No more or less so than other many other bugs.

> Your code containing UB can work fine in the environment that you
> use, but it might not work when you compile it elsewhere.
>

Just like other bugs.