🚀 go-pugleaf

(newsgroups trimmed)

c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:

... Bertrands marketing hype snipped (he shouldn't have done it that way ;-) ...

>So, why should a programmer _not_ use special techniques and tricks permitted
>by a language?

Maybe, if you can ever understand this, because someone less of a
genius than you should not only read, but also _understand_ what the
code deos. If that guy cost you something between $2 and $5 a minute,
you would like him to understand it fast and not being hampered by a
(hacked) syntax not really :-) designed for readability.

>What the C standard _permits_ you to do is perfectly legal. It gives you
>well-defined behavior that will translate correctly.

Omigod KK (or cjiv?). This is completely irrelevant. It is also right
for (most) machine codes, assemblers, Java byte code...

>This thread is full of clueless, idiotic postings that are devoid of concrete
>examples, the excerpt from this Bertrand character's book is no exception.
>He is clearly a clueless twit who should not be published.

If anyone here is somewhat clueless, guess who (besides me :-)  This
one stamps you to an <add expletive here>.

>If he actually gave a solid example, a knowledgeable expert would be able to
>rip him to shreds. Vagueness is the ultimate defence of persuasive authors who
>use the emotional appeal of the written word to coerce like-minded individuals
>into a particular opinion. If we had Bertrand right here and criticized his
>writing openly, he could---endlessly, no doubt---keep backing out by saying ``I
>didn't say that'', ``I didn't mean that'' and so forth. Of course not: he
>bloody _didn't_ say a damn thing!

Wonderful argument -- no technical content.

Actually, I didn't like what Bertrand wrote either. But what you said
about him shows what you really are.  Read it carefully again -- he
cannot afford bringing up the whole world against him, and he
explicated quite exactly what _in_ _his_ opinion hackers are.  I do
not agree with him on his definition of hacker, but the people _he_
subsumes under this term are harmful to any reasonable software
project, as most probably you (damned shit, now I replied with a ad
hominem attack... flame me, flame me!).

>Some books, on the other hand, are so loaded with interesting content that
>reading but a few pages leaves one enlightented, and returning to the book time
>and time again one learns something new.

Yes, I found some of them to be about other languages than C and C++.
I do almost no programming in Eiffel any more (in favor of Ada 95 and,
yes, ANSI C), anyway the books of BM were enlightening (thanks go to
Bertrand).

>Other books are just full of self-righteous spouting without substance. It's
>not too hard to see in what category this belongs.

Ok, ok, some of his pages (also those about Ada) are, hmmmm, at least
a bit questionable and maybe not quite fair. Keep in mind that BM has
to sell his language when you read his books, then they are very, very
good.

(Kazimir, one week kill file entries showed up to be much too short!)

Dirk

--
Dirk Dickmanns -- real-time dynamic computer vision
Sun OS 4.1.3; PC Linux; dying: Transputers - embedded
Ada 95, Ada 83, OCCAM2/3, ANSI C, Eiffel 3, PROLOG, C++