jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org> writes:

> lcc-win32 has gone beyond half a *million* downloads. This
> is the PROOF that I have no knowledge of C: it is one of the
> most popular C99 implementations in the world.
<snip>
> Yet another problem for those people is the fact that I have
> implemented the standard C,

Would it not be better to say that it is nearly C99? When I posted a
few problem programs (in a other group, since it is off-topic here),
you replied that those bits were "not implemented". That is fine, of
course, (very few compilers are fully C99 conforming) but glossing
over the bits that don't work adds to the suspicion that you put more
value on marketing spin than technical accuracy.

--
Ben.

jacob navia wrote:
> jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
....
>> As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
>> him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
>> his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
>> provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
>> code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
>> one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
>> understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
>> verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
>> much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
>> actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
>> has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof
....
> Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:

I'd like to point out that it is not "my" logic, I'm merely explaining
my best guess at to what other people think. I'm just trying to show
that there's no inherent conflict between those people believing that
you are incompetent, and wanting a copy of your source code.

My own opinion is that you have frequently displayed on this newsgroup a
poor understanding of some aspects of C. I have frequently seen you
express an attitude that is, at best, lackadaisical, and in some cases
is antithetical, toward many things that I consider essential parts of
"best practices" for a professional programmer - your recent thread
about memory management is a prime example.

I would expect that any code you wrote would reflect that understanding
and those attitudes, but I'm not going to automatically assume so
without proof. Access to your source code would allow me to determine
whether or not this is the case; except of course that I've got a whole
lot of more important things to do with my life. I pity those of your
critics who look forward to wasting their time that way.

However, I'm also not going to assume that just because a lot of people
have downloaded your product, that it's necessarily a good one. After
all, Microsoft has been enormously successful.

"James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:WFoRi.37261$uC1.21103@trnddc04...
> jacob navia wrote:
>> jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
> ...
> However, I'm also not going to assume that just because a lot of people
> have downloaded your product, that it's necessarily a good one. After all,
> Microsoft has been enormously successful.
a billion flies can't be wrong: dung tastes wonderfull!

Bye, Jojo

"James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> jacob navia wrote:
>> jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
> ...
>>> As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
>>> him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
>>> his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
>>> provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
>>> code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
>>> one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
>>> understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
>>> verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
>>> much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
>>> actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
>>> has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof
> ...
>> Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:
>
> I'd like to point out that it is not "my" logic, I'm merely explaining
> my best guess at to what other people think. I'm just trying to show
> that there's no inherent conflict between those people believing that
> you are incompetent, and wanting a copy of your source code.

Who are "those people"? Please do not confuse a couple of arrogant
bigheads for the great majority.

>
> My own opinion is that you have frequently displayed on this newsgroup
> a poor understanding of some aspects of C. I have frequently seen you
> express an attitude that is, at best, lackadaisical, and in some cases
> is antithetical, toward many things that I consider essential parts of
> "best practices" for a professional programmer - your recent thread
> about memory management is a prime example.

Aha. It is a sockpuppet.

Richard wrote:
> "James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > jacob navia wrote:
> >> jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
> > ...
> >>> As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
> >>> him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
> >>> his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
> >>> provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
> >>> code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
> >>> one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
> >>> understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
> >>> verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
> >>> much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
> >>> actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
> >>> has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof
> > ...
> >> Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:
> >
> > I'd like to point out that it is not "my" logic, I'm merely explaining
> > my best guess at to what other people think. I'm just trying to show
> > that there's no inherent conflict between those people believing that
> > you are incompetent, and wanting a copy of your source code.
>
> Who are "those people"? Please do not confuse a couple of arrogant
> bigheads for the great majority.
>
> >
> > My own opinion is that you have frequently displayed on this newsgroup
> > a poor understanding of some aspects of C. I have frequently seen you
> > express an attitude that is, at best, lackadaisical, and in some cases
> > is antithetical, toward many things that I consider essential parts of
> > "best practices" for a professional programmer - your recent thread
> > about memory management is a prime example.
>
> Aha. It is a sockpuppet.

I'm vaguely familiar with term, as referring to someone deceptively
using a different identity from their usual one. My new e-mail address
is in no way deceptive, it's my actual name, and I'm the same James
Kuyper who has previously posted thousands of messages on comp.std.c,
comp.std.c++, and comp.lang.c as kuyper@wizard.net, and a quite
different person from anyone who has ever posted without using the
name "kuyper".

That I agree in any way with someone else who has also posted here
doesn't make me a sock puppet, no matter how much you would prefer
that to be the case. Believe it or not, people can reach conclusions
which you disagree with, without any collusion, conspiracy, or
deception involved.

In article <WFoRi.37261$uC1.21103@trnddc04>,
James Kuyper Jr. <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>> jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
>...
>>> As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
>>> him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
>>> his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
>>> provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
>>> code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
>>> one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
>>> understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
>>> verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
>>> much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
>>> actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
>>> has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof
>...
>> Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:
>
>I'd like to point out that it is not "my" logic, I'm merely explaining
>my best guess at to what other people think. I'm just trying to show
>that there's no inherent conflict between those people believing that
>you are incompetent, and wanting a copy of your source code.

Yes. There is. Though maybe not on the surface. But if you scratch
underneath a little, it's pretty obvious.

And what makes us truly sad is the realization that, sure as the day
turns into night, if Jacob did publish his source code, someone (i.e.,
Heathfield, either directly or via a sockpuppet) would see fit to post a
line-by-line critique, complete with a snarky comment at every turn.
We've seen these line-by-line critiques before, and the glee and obvious
joy that the posters take in them is truly sickening.

What a waste of human potential!

Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <WFoRi.37261$uC1.21103@trnddc04>,
> James Kuyper Jr. <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
....
> >my best guess at to what other people think. I'm just trying to show
> >that there's no inherent conflict between those people believing that
> >you are incompetent, and wanting a copy of your source code.
>
> Yes. There is. Though maybe not on the surface. But if you scratch
> underneath a little, it's pretty obvious.

I could see that there was a contradiction if they desired a copy of
the source code because they expect it to be competently written, and
they want to take advantage of that competence.

If they want the copy because they expect it to be incompetently
written, and they wish proof of that fact, then any contradiction is
too well buried for me to see it. I've scratched around underneath the
surface, as you suggested, and I can't find it. Could you elaborate on
the nature of the contradiction?

Fundamentally, behind the desire for the source code is a hope that if
it contains sufficiently clear evidence of his incompetence, Jacob
will either change his mind about the relevant issues, or be so
ashamed that he'll go away. That strikes me as wishful thinking. I
doubt that his code contains any evidence sufficiently clear to
achieve that effect.

jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> If they want the copy because they expect it to be incompetently
> written, and they wish proof of that fact, then any contradiction
> is too well buried for me to see it. I've scratched around
> underneath the surface, as you suggested, and I can't find it.
> Could you elaborate on the nature of the contradiction?
>
> Fundamentally, behind the desire for the source code is a hope
> that if it contains sufficiently clear evidence of his
> incompetence, Jacob will either change his mind about the relevant
> issues, or be so ashamed that he'll go away. That strikes me as
> wishful thinking. I doubt that his code contains any evidence
> sufficiently clear to achieve that effect.

Please ignore McCormack. He is a known troll.

Jacob Navia obviously has good capabilities. He is sadly lacking
in knowledge of the actual facts about C, and even worse, he
refuses to learn. To him the computer world seems to consist of
X86's, (provided equipped with the Pentium designation) running
under some form of Winders, and lately some form of Linux.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com