Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!ballou From: ballou@brahms (Kenneth R. Ballou) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Apologies Message-ID: <551@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Sun, 14-Dec-86 05:58:58 EST Article-I.D.: cartan.551 Posted: Sun Dec 14 05:58:58 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 01:36:53 EST References: <1473@brl-adm.ARPA> Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: ballou@brahms (Kenneth R. Ballou) Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley Lines: 64 In article <1473@brl-adm.ARPA> KJBSF%SLACVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu writes: >I must say that I have found all of your responses recently to be extremely >rude. Can't you say anything CIVIL when you think that the other person is >obviously some lower form of life? Your snide comments detract from whatever >arguments you might be making. > I think you should think a bit more before posting such garbage to the net >again. Just think about who's on the receiving end of your diatribes. > >- Kevin Burnett >SLAC Actually, you are quite right. Upon re-reading my posting, I see that it certainly does look like a personal attack on the poster. For all the good it does, I did not mean it as such. Of course, that does not take back what I wrote. I also owe Moshe Braner a substantial apology. If I recall correctly, I have come down on his last few postings 'like a ton of bricks,' conveying an attitude that he is incompetent. Please let me note that he has in fact contributed a respectable scheme for object oriented programming involving clever use of the C preprocessor. Although I found the message passing syntax (which has unbalanced parentheses) unattractive, his system is still a fine piece of work. That having been said, let me state that I will also steadfastly argue against proposals to radically alter C because processor X on machine Y in environment Z makes a certain feature easy to implement. I still hold firmly to the belief that C can be made to run in diverse settings relatively easily exactly because the language is small and does not make extreme demands of the machine/processor, as (for example) a requirement that there be arrays of bitfields would. Perhaps I might also offer, for want of a better term, some unsolicited advice? 1) Before posting a question, please look in a reasonable reference book (K&R or Harbison & Steele to answer questions about what is current practice, or the ANSI standard document to see what should be current practice in the future. This would seem to be a quicker way of finding out whether 'exit 0' is legal C or not. 2) Before posting a code fragment, please try compiling it to see if it actually does what you claim it should do. Then, I will offer myself some advice: 3) Show the same courtesy to those with opinions differing from mine as I expect of them. Please look for a posting I plan to make on the subject of why casts should not yield l-values that I hope will show I am almost as capable of rational discussion as I am of personal attacks. Excuse me while I set down to a hefty and well-deserved serving of crow ... -------- Kenneth R. Ballou ARPA: ballou@brahms Department of Mathematics UUCP: ...!ucbvax!brahms!ballou University of California Berkeley, California 94720 -------- Kenneth R. Ballou ARPA: ballou@brahms Department of Mathematics UUCP: ...!ucbvax!brahms!ballou University of California Berkeley, California 94720