jacob navia wrote:
> Charlie Gordon wrote:
> > No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.
> >
> >> :-)
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
>
> Do *you* Charlie?
>
> Please let me have all your work for the last 12 years for free!
> And please give me all the products your company sells for free too.
>
> All source code, documentation, etc, so that I can use it without paying
> you a penny.
>
> Of course you will not pay me the money *I paid* for the
> source of lcc. That is my problem of course, not yours.
>
> I remember that you told that you sell compilers. I *can*
> imagine that having the source code of a compiler could
> you make some money...
>
> But I am sorry, I will sell my product myself.

This sort of despicable selfishness makes me ashamed to share the same
earth as some people. Who cares if software is a social good, and if
sharing free software benefits the whole community? To hell with
everyone else, as long as you can make some money off the back of
someone else's work developing lcc in the first place! Just sickening.

It's interesting to see the progression from someone making a slightly
negative comment about lcc-win32, through Navia reacting sourly but
not abusively, and finally to Navia unleashing an unwarranted torrent
of abuse against Charlie Gordon, one of the posters to clc who (in
stark contrast to Navia) actually knows something about C and is
willing to other people without always being driven by this
morbid obsession with money.

rosewater@mailinator.com writes:

> jacob navia wrote:
>> Charlie Gordon wrote:
>> > No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.
>> >
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>> >
>>
>> Do *you* Charlie?
>>
>> Please let me have all your work for the last 12 years for free!
>> And please give me all the products your company sells for free too.
>>
>> All source code, documentation, etc, so that I can use it without paying
>> you a penny.
>>
>> Of course you will not pay me the money *I paid* for the
>> source of lcc. That is my problem of course, not yours.
>>
>> I remember that you told that you sell compilers. I *can*
>> imagine that having the source code of a compiler could
>> you make some money...
>>
>> But I am sorry, I will sell my product myself.
>
> This sort of despicable selfishness makes me ashamed to share the same
> earth as some people. Who cares if software is a social good, and if
> sharing free software benefits the whole community? To hell with
> everyone else, as long as you can make some money off the back of
> someone else's work developing lcc in the first place! Just sickening.

Did you read Jacob's comments or are you just another "he who shall not
be named" sock puppet?

>
> It's interesting to see the progression from someone making a slightly
> negative comment about lcc-win32, through Navia reacting sourly but
> not abusively, and finally to Navia unleashing an unwarranted torrent
> of abuse against Charlie Gordon, one of the posters to clc who (in

Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
he should behave.

> stark contrast to Navia) actually knows something about C and is
> willing to other people without always being driven by this
> morbid obsession with money.

Be sure to wash your tongue - there are brown bits on it.

Yet another example of a minority's obsession with Jacob and his work.

Richard wrote:
> Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
> that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
> does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
> he should behave.

Utter rubbish. Charlie made a joke, which happened to have a serious
point to it. Of course, Navia has no sense of humor, and went off on
one of his self-righteous, self-justifying, and above all self-
obsessed rants.

The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
you decide to back the loser.

In article <jaafu4-52q.ln1@news.individual.net>,
the good and sensible Richard <rgrdev@gmail.com> eloquently wrote:
....
>> This sort of despicable selfishness makes me ashamed to share the same
>> earth as some people. Who cares if software is a social good, and if
>> sharing free software benefits the whole community? To hell with
>> everyone else, as long as you can make some money off the back of
>> someone else's work developing lcc in the first place! Just sickening.

And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.

Why else ask for the sources???

>Did you read Jacob's comments or are you just another "he who shall not
>be named" sock puppet?

No doubt.

<rosewater@mailinator.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1192558603.431552.70210@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.co m...
> Richard wrote:
>> Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
>> that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
>> does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
>> he should behave.
>
> Utter rubbish. Charlie made a joke, which happened to have a serious
> point to it. Of course, Navia has no sense of humor, and went off on
> one of his self-righteous, self-justifying, and above all self-
> obsessed rants.
>
> The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
> horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
> statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
> you decide to back the loser.

Yes, I made two jokes.
I was trying to understate the "horrible" comment.
I was not knocking the compiler at all.
I was not dictating Jacob anything, but stating my opinion.
As far as rudeness goes, you rosewater are among the worst abusers on the
newsgroup.

--
Chqrlie.

rosewater@mailinator.com writes:
[...]
> The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
> horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
> statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
> you decide to back the loser.

It is not a simple statement of fact. It is unnecessarily rude and
deliberately inflammatory.

Since you know how jacob reacts to such insults, I can only assume you
were trying to elicit exactly that reaction.

You are a troll. Please go away.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Kenny McCormack wrote:
....
> And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
> their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
> sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.
>
> Why else ask for the sources???

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

jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
> ...
>> And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
>> their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
>> sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.
>>
>> Why else ask for the sources???
>
> 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
>

My program is distributed freely. That is why the accuse me
(anonymously) of a "morbid interest for money". Then, I do not
know how C works, nor I do know anything at all. The fact that my
programs work and are used by tens of thousands of users all
over the wold is a proof that I do not know how to program.

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.

Obviously those people have produced software more successful
than mine, specially Mark McIntyre, "old wolf" etc... Everyone
knows about them. *Their* programs can also be freely downloaded
isn't it?

Yet another problem for those people is the fact that I have
implemented the standard C, not some obsolete standard they appreciate.
Because they have all the time "standard C" in their mouths but when
it comes to the real standard then they say that... well they do not
like it, that nobody uses it, etc etc.

Since my program works, and people like it, it is badly written,
OBVIOUSLY!

Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:

If I have people that insult me anonymously, *I* am responsible for
*their* behavior because by writing and distributing a C compiler for
free I somehow "provoked" them into that. They just couldn't do
otherwise the poor people.

So let's stop this polemic. I will not reply to any messages in this
thread, and give these people more importance than what they actually
have.

I will just go on working for the C community as I have done since
more than 12 years.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

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

[snips]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:26:32 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

> 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.

The fact you've got a lot of copies out there doesn't really mean much;
by this argument, McDonald's is a gourmet restaurant.

In article <n71ju4-fgn.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:26:32 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>The fact you've got a lot of copies out there doesn't really mean much;
>by this argument, McDonald's is a gourmet restaurant.

For an amazingly large portion of the (world's) population, it IS.

Say what you will, but the fact is that ubiquity does count for
something.

Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <n71ju4-fgn.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:26:32 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> The fact you've got a lot of copies out there doesn't really mean much;
>> by this argument, McDonald's is a gourmet restaurant.
>
> For an amazingly large portion of the (world's) population, it IS.
>
> Say what you will, but the fact is that ubiquity does count for
> something.

You seem to have completely missed Kelsey's point. Jacob was saying that
lcc-win32 is quality because it has a large userbase. Kelsey was saying
that the same argument applies to McDonald's. But we know that McDonalds
is not quality - and even the people who use it recognise that it isn't
the Ritz or the Waldorf.

(I have never seen lcc-win32 for myself, I'm not going to say anything
about the quality of the compiler.)

--
Philip Potter pgp <at> doc.ic.ac.uk

Philip Potter <pgp@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
[snip]
> You seem to have completely missed Kelsey's point.
[...]

Please don't feed the troll.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[snips]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:31:58 +0100, Philip Potter wrote:

> (I have never seen lcc-win32 for myself, I'm not going to say anything
> about the quality of the compiler.)

Likewise. For all I know, lcc-win32 is the best compiler in existence. I
was merely objecting to the argument that popular means good - "Eat dung,
after all, a trillion flies can't be wrong."

[snips]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:44:32 -0700, jameskuyper wrote:

> 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.

<Mode=Monty Python>
No they can't!
</Mode>

Good goat, if all it took to be a "sock puppet" was disagreeing with
someone, then we'd all be sock puppets - even Richard.

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes:

> 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

Guffaw. Time and time again your are plain wrong in your replies and are
corrected. To err is human, but to consider yourself elite is plain
laughable.


> 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>

CBFalconer wrote:

> [...] the computer world seems to consist of X86's, (provided
> equipped with the Pentium designation) [...]

Intel has dropped the Pentium brand. It's just 'Core' now,
e.g. Core 2 Quad Q6600.