In article <a--dnS51Xs7nWL_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote:
>James Dow Allen wrote:
>
>> Excepting spam, posts in this ng can be divided roughly
>> into five categories:
>
> > homework/work problems,
>
> > technical answers,
>
> > boring or boorish gibberish, witticisms, and whining.
>
>That's only three categories.
>
>--
>pete

If you're missing a couple of fingers...

spinoza1111 wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:

<snip>

> Navia? Didn't he implement C?

He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE himself.

> Perhaps I'm not the only person to
> accomplish something in the real world, only to encounter a shit storm
> of abuse from people who've done nothing and use anonymous demiblogs
> to spit their resentment at people who have.

Not publishing source does not mean people have not achieved anything in
the real world. A lot of people work places where they are not permitted
to publish the code they are paid to write.

> Schildt wrote Tiny C and
> best selling books, but fatass creeps target him on wikipedia.

The criticisms seem properly researched to me, including being
researched by actual voting members of the C committee.

> Life sucks!

Indeed. People can still recommend bad book and some bad books can be
easy to read and appear authoritative.
--
Flash Gordon

Flash Gordon said:

> spinoza1111 wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>
<snip>

>> Schildt wrote Tiny C and
>> best selling books, but fatass creeps target him on wikipedia.
>
> The criticisms seem properly researched to me, including being
> researched by actual voting members of the C committee.
>
>> Life sucks!
>
> Indeed. People can still recommend bad book and some bad books can be
> easy to read and appear authoritative.

I recommend that you search the archives for a dozen other articles by your
correspondent, and draw your own conclusions.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

spinoza1111 wrote:
>
.... Monstrous snip of Nilgewater ...
>
> Interesting typeface here in c.l.c. I have committed not to post on
> comp.programming until my compiler for the spinoza language is done.
> As to why it's late, what part of "Asian six day week or you no eat
> Gweilo running dog" don't you chumps understand?
>
> Professor Doctor Extraordinarius-Superfluentiosus Edward G.
> spinoza1111 Nilges, Knight-Commander of the Mystic Sea, Licensed
> Nubility Tester, Notary Sojak, Certified Programmer (DPMA 1972, so

Oh hell. He has spread here. One more entry in the PLONK file.
The above, if accurate, means he will never get back to
comp.programming. Obviously Nilges has no control over his
newsreader (see the typeface comment).

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On May 9, 2:03am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Navia? Didn't he implement C?
>
> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE himself.

This is, I think, a lie at worst. At best, it is (once again) a
deliberate attempt to destroy a person's reputation, and to make the
ONLY topic of discussion in a TECHNICAL newsgroup, that attempt.

It can be much more difficult to adapt complex software than to write
it using your own conventions.

You come in here anonymously, probably some corporate s*tbag who does
nothing except force users to get rid of screen savers and mess up
data bases, and you assault people who have done something, anything.

>
> > Perhaps I'm not the only person to
> > accomplish something in the real world, only to encounter a shit storm
> > of abuse from people who've done nothing and use anonymous demiblogs
> > to spit their resentment at people who have.
>
> Not publishing source does not mean people have not achieved anything in
> the real world. A lot of people work places where they are not permitted
> to publish the code they are paid to write.

...and they rage, they rage, at people who have refused to be
postmodern slaves.

>
> > Schildt wrote Tiny C and
> > best selling books, but fatass creeps target him on wikipedia.
>
> The criticisms seem properly researched to me, including being
> researched by actual voting members of the C committee.

It wasn't there job to destroy people, and if they made it their
mission, and if they used public funds, they need to be served
subpoenas for this behavior.

If you don't like a man's work, just ignore him: but given your
replicated and mass psychological disorder, a disorder to be sure even
if statistically preponderant, you're addicted to suppressing the
weakness in yourself by addictively attacking, not ideas nor power,
but people who you think you can bully, here using a standards
committee that probably used public funds.


>
> > Life sucks!
>
> Indeed. People can still recommend bad book and some bad books can be
> easy to read and appear authoritative.
> --
> Flash Gordon

spinoza1111 said:

> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Navia? Didn't he implement C?
>>
>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE
>> himself.
>
> This is, I think, a lie at worst.

There, there, Edward. I know the facts can be confusing, but that doesn't
mean the facts are lies.

> At best, it is (once again) a
> deliberate attempt to destroy a person's reputation, and to make the
> ONLY topic of discussion in a TECHNICAL newsgroup, that attempt.

It's merely a neutral description of the facts, neither positive nor
negative.

> It can be much more difficult to adapt complex software than to write
> it using your own conventions.

Nobody has claimed otherwise, dear chap.

> You come in here anonymously,

And you had a point, spinoza1111@yahoo.com? But AIUI "Flash" is his
nickname in Real Life and Gordon is his real surname. Not so terribly
anonymous after all.

> probably some corporate s*tbag

There there, Edward. If you can just hold off with that silly playground
talk, you might persuade one or two people that you are worth reading. You
never know your luck. But if you call people names, your cause (such as it
is) is lost.

<snip>

>> > Schildt wrote Tiny C and
>> > best selling books, but fatass creeps target him on wikipedia.
>>
>> The criticisms seem properly researched to me, including being
>> researched by actual voting members of the C committee.
>
> It wasn't there job to destroy people,

There there, Edward. Criticising poor workmanship is not the same as
destroying people.

> and if they made it their
> mission, and if they used public funds, they need to be served
> subpoenas for this behavior.

There there, Edward. Serve away.

> If you don't like a man's work, just ignore him:

There there, Edward. It isn't a question of like or dislike. Schildt's work
is actually rather likeable - it's just *wrong*, that's all.

> but given your
> replicated and mass psychological disorder,

There there, Edward - can you say "projection"?


> a disorder to be sure even
> if statistically preponderant, you're addicted to suppressing the
> weakness in yourself by addictively attacking, not ideas nor power,
> but people who you think you can bully, here using a standards
> committee that probably used public funds.

There there, Edward - telling people they can't use "your" seat on a public
ferry is bullying. Publishing technical criticisms of flawed technical
works is a public service.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> spinoza1111 said:
>
>> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Navia? Didn't he implement C?
>>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
>>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE
>>> himself.
>> This is, I think, a lie at worst.
>
> There, there, Edward. I know the facts can be confusing, but that doesn't
> mean the facts are lies.
>


Heathfield?

He just wrote his name in a book that was written by other people...

I can also say that. It is OK with you?

And if you say that that is a lie, I can always say:

> There, there, Heathfield. I know the facts can be confusing, but that
> doesn't mean the facts are lies.
>


>> At best, it is (once again) a
>> deliberate attempt to destroy a person's reputation, and to make the
>> ONLY topic of discussion in a TECHNICAL newsgroup, that attempt.
>
> It's merely a neutral description of the facts, neither positive nor
> negative.
>


Your lies are obviously a "neutral description of the facts".

And when I say that you just put your name in a book written by other
people it is obviously a neutral description of the facts.

What are the facts?

The lcc compiler version I started with, did not have an assembler, it
generated ascii. I wrote the assembler.

It did not have a linker. I wrote the linker.

It did not have neither a makefile nor an IDE, nor a debugger. I
wrote all those.

I added a peephole optimizer, and speed up by a factor of 4 or 5
the generated code.

It did not have a C99 compliant C library. I wrote that.

It did not have long long support, nor C99 support. I wrote that.
And I will not go into the extensions, etc etc.

You are a liar. With the same logic I can go around and say that
you just put your name in a book written by others.


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

jacob navia said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> spinoza1111 said:
>>
>>> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Navia? Didn't he implement C?
>>>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
>>>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE
>>>> himself.
>>> This is, I think, a lie at worst.
>>
>> There, there, Edward. I know the facts can be confusing, but that
>> doesn't mean the facts are lies.
>
> Heathfield? He just wrote his name in a book that was
> written by other people...
>
> I can also say that. It is OK with you?

You're free to say what you like. Don't ask *me* whether it's accurate -
I'm obviously biased. Ask some of those "other people" whether your claim
is true.

> And if you say that that is a lie,

I very, very rarely accuse people of lying. I think it's a very serious
accusation that requires a lot of supporting evidence. You, on the other
hand, seem to think that such accusations are merely a debating technique.

> I can always say:
>
> > There, there, Heathfield. I know the facts can be confusing, but that
> > doesn't mean the facts are lies.

Yes, you can say that, and of course you are echoing back words that you do
not understand, that stem from a context of which you are unaware.

>>> At best, it is (once again) a
>>> deliberate attempt to destroy a person's reputation, and to make the
>>> ONLY topic of discussion in a TECHNICAL newsgroup, that attempt.
>>
>> It's merely a neutral description of the facts, neither positive nor
>> negative.
>
> Your lies are obviously a "neutral description of the facts".

Lies? Are you saying that you *did* write lcc-win32 from scratch? If so,
please make up your mind whether you did or whether you didn't, because
you are on record as saying that you acquired rights to the lcc compiler
and modified it, which is very different from writing lcc-win32 from
scratch. (See below.)

>
> And when I say that you just put your name in a book written by other
> people it is obviously a neutral description of the facts.

If you think so, then you haven't read about a quarter of the book (over
340 pages). Careless of you.

>
> What are the facts?
>
> The lcc compiler version I started with,

Precisely. Nobody was attacking you, nobody was criticising you, nobody was
*blaming* you for starting out with a compiler. They were simply observing
that you did start out with a compiler, rather than write one from
scratch. That doesn't take away anything that you've achieved, and nothing
of the kind has been suggested, and the only person who thinks it has been
is Mr Nilges, whose capacity for getting things wrong is quite possibly
unparalleled in the history of Usenet. Yet you are trying to see this
whole claim (that you did not write the compiler from scratch) as an
attack, and turn it into a fight. Why?

<snip>

> You are a liar.

What have I said that is untrue?

> With the same logic I can go around and say that
> you just put your name in a book written by others.

Yes, you are free to say whatever you like. Whether what you say is true is
something that people can decide for themselves on the basis of the
observable facts.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:[snip]
[snip]
>
> Yes, you are free to say whatever you like. Whether what you say is true is
> something that people can decide for themselves on the basis of the
> observable facts.
>



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

jacob navia wrote, On 09/05/08 08:21:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> spinoza1111 said:
>>
>>> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Navia? Didn't he implement C?
>>>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
>>>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE
>>>> himself.
>>> This is, I think, a lie at worst.

<snip>

>>> At best, it is (once again) a
>>> deliberate attempt to destroy a person's reputation, and to make the
>>> ONLY topic of discussion in a TECHNICAL newsgroup, that attempt.
>>
>> It's merely a neutral description of the facts, neither positive nor
>> negative.
>
> Your lies are obviously a "neutral description of the facts".

Jacob, it was not an attack on you merely a correction of fact. You did
start with a compiler from someone else and you have since done a lot of
work on it.

<snip>

> What are the facts?
>
> The lcc compiler version I started with, did not have an assembler, it
> generated ascii. I wrote the assembler.
>
> It did not have a linker. I wrote the linker.
>
> It did not have neither a makefile nor an IDE, nor a debugger. I
> wrote all those.

I acknowledged the debugger as I could remember you wrote that. I said
that you might have written the entire IDE yourself, but could not state
it as fact since I could not remember.

> I added a peephole optimizer, and speed up by a factor of 4 or 5
> the generated code.
>
> It did not have a C99 compliant C library. I wrote that.
>
> It did not have long long support, nor C99 support. I wrote that.

Yes, adding C99 support is extending the compiler.

> And I will not go into the extensions, etc etc.

I actually said that you extended it, not that you added extensions.
Adding optimisation is extending it. I also did not say that adding the
extensions was wrong.

> You are a liar. With the same logic I can go around and say that
> you just put your name in a book written by others.

You can say that Richard is named as one of the authors of a book a lot
of which was not written by him and this would be true.
--
Flash Gordon

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 09/05/08 07:07:

<snip>

> And you had a point, spinoza1111@yahoo.com? But AIUI "Flash" is his
> nickname in Real Life and Gordon is his real surname. Not so terribly
> anonymous after all.

Correct. It is also very easy to find out my real name. The only
difficult thing is finding out what my middle name is.
--
Flash Gordon

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> jacob navia said:
>
>> With the same logic I can go around and say that
>> you just put your name in a book written by others.

..... except that he wrote the acknowledgements, chapters 1 and 2, the
dedication and possibly other sections .
And note also that the book you refer to is by "Heathfield, Kirby et al"
and makes no claim to be exclusively by RJH.

> Yes, you are free to say whatever you like. Whether what you say is true is
> something that people can decide for themselves on the basis of the
> observable facts.

I was observing the facts contained in the copy of the book currently
sitting open on my desk... :-)

--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

spinoza1111 wrote:
> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Navia? Didn't he implement C?
>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE himself.
>
> This is, I think, a lie at worst.

Actually, its not.

lcc-win32 is based on lcc, which was written by someone else. Jacob will
be happy to confirm that I'm sure.

> You come in here anonymously,

Actually this is incorrect too. Though its a fairly interesting comment
from someone posting as "spinoza1111" which I'm pretty sure isn't your
given name.

--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> writes:

>spinoza1111 wrote:

>> You come in here anonymously,

>Actually this is incorrect too. Though its a fairly interesting comment
>from someone posting as "spinoza1111" which I'm pretty sure isn't your
>given name.


While "spinoza1111" may not be Edward Nilges' given name, anyone
unfortunate enough to have read a sample of Edward's contributions to
USENET life, certainly knows who "spinoza1111" is, and recognizes many
of the personality traits and flaws associated with his moniker.
He is far from anonymous.

--
Chris.

On May 9, 3:50 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> jacob navia said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>spinoza1111said:
>
> >>> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> >>>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>
> >>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> Navia? Didn't he implement C?
> >>>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
> >>>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE
> >>>> himself.
> >>> This is, I think, a lie at worst.
>
> >> There, there, Edward. I know the facts can be confusing, but that
> >> doesn't mean the facts are lies.
>
> > Heathfield? He just wrote his name in a book that was
> > written by other people...
>
> > I can also say that. It is OK with you?
>
> You're free to say what you like. Don't ask *me* whether it's accurate -
> I'm obviously biased. Ask some of those "other people" whether your claim
> is true.
>
> > And if you say that that is a lie,
>
> I very, very rarely accuse people of lying. I think it's a very serious
> accusation that requires a lot of supporting evidence. You, on the other
> hand, seem to think that such accusations are merely a debating technique.
>
> > I can always say:
>
> > > There, there, Heathfield. I know the facts can be confusing, but that
> > > doesn't mean the facts are lies.
>
> Yes, you can say that, and of course you are echoing back words that you do
> not understand, that stem from a context of which you are unaware.
>
> >>> At best, it is (once again) a
> >>> deliberate attempt to destroy a person's reputation, and to make the
> >>> ONLY topic of discussion in a TECHNICAL newsgroup, that attempt.
>
> >> It's merely a neutral description of the facts, neither positive nor
> >> negative.
>
> > Your lies are obviously a "neutral description of the facts".
>
> Lies? Are you saying that you *did* write lcc-win32 from scratch? If so,
> please make up your mind whether you did or whether you didn't, because
> you are on record as saying that you acquired rights to the lcc compiler
> and modified it, which is very different from writing lcc-win32 from
> scratch. (See below.)
>
Modifying existing software is often more difficult than writing it
anew. When you write it *ex nihilo* you can keep standards consistent
whereas Jacob had to fully understand the existing code.

Jacob acquired the rights to the existing code and instead of sitting
on his ass here since 2000 attacking better men, like you have, he
made something very, very, useful.

There was not the slightest hint of plagiarism in his work, any more
than Clinton violated any laws by getting a blow job, but here, you
are trying to drag Navia into some sort of second-level situation in
which you, a bully and a thug, can "prove" him "dishonest" as you sit
on your fat ass and post post post. Precisely as Bill Clinton was
hounded, and precisely as his unspeakable wife is hounding and
harassing Obama.

This form of self-reflexive negative politics is well past its sell-by
date. Just as in the states we need to get rid of Ms. Clinton and have
an honorable and decent campaign between Obama and McCain, people who
don't play Heathfield-style games, we need to get Heathfield to take a
sabbatical, or stump up a collection to pay him to stay away.


>
>
> > And when I say that you just put your name in a book written by other
> > people it is obviously a neutral description of the facts.
>
> If you think so, then you haven't read about a quarter of the book (over
> 340 pages). Careless of you.

You force people like Navia to respond and then you drag them in the
mud, over and over again. You are the one at fault and I hope one day
to see the lot of you stinking, rotten, little "bloggers", people who
do nothing except destroy, in the dock of Old Bailey or in an American
court. "Freedom of speech?" Bullshit. You misuse it.
>
>
>
> > What are the facts?
>
> > The lcc compiler version I started with,
>
> Precisely. Nobody was attacking you, nobody was criticising you, nobody was
> *blaming* you for starting out with a compiler. They were simply observing
> that you did start out with a compiler, rather than write one from

Navia, don't let him get away with this. He uses a quiet and "factual"
tone when he is trying to destroy people's reputation and good name.
He does so because he's a lower middle class shop-boy and thug without
a reputation or good name to protect, and he resents anybody who does
anything...beyond getting his pals to write a book.

> scratch. That doesn't take away anything that you've achieved, and nothing
> of the kind has been suggested, and the only person who thinks it has been
> is Mr Nilges, whose capacity for getting things wrong is quite possibly

Navia, this man, given his posture here as the Great Authority, has
failed a simple test in C++. This man confuses && and || under stress.
Don't believe a word he says. He resents creative people who have
ideas, and as a nasty little clerk, he loves to list other people's
"errors". He is without courage, or charity, or decency, and don't let
him get you down.

> unparalleled in the history of Usenet. Yet you are trying to see this
> whole claim (that you did not write the compiler from scratch) as an
> attack, and turn it into a fight. Why?
>
> <snip>
>
> > You are a liar.
>
> What have I said that is untrue?
>
> > With the same logic I can go around and say that
> > you just put your name in a book written by others.
>
> Yes, you are free to say whatever you like. Whether what you say is true is
> something that people can decide for themselves on the basis of the
> observable facts.

I've asked Richard to do as I've done several times. This is to simply
leave these groups in a sabbatical. Richard constantly starts
unnecessary wars by making snide and nasty comments to third parties
about the very basic attributes of people: their competence, decency
and honesty, qualities which people of course need to participate in a
discussion. In 1976, during the hobby-programmer era, these sort of
comments were not made in an atmosphere of sharing and enthusiasm, an
atmosphere that was then exploited and destroyed by corporate forces
and the advent of Thatcher and of Reagan, since the plan was for the
middle classes of America and Britain to be destroyed.

People like Heathfield have done the dirty work of this
transformation. They hate the very idea of authorship and when they
encounter any such claim, they try to destroy the author. They are
thugs and vandals and they need to leave this group so that it can
meet its primary purpose.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999- Hide quoted text -
>

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> jacob navia said:
>>
>>> With the same logic I can go around and say that
>>> you just put your name in a book written by others.
>
> .... except that he wrote the acknowledgements, chapters 1 and 2,
> the dedication and possibly other sections. And note also that
> the book you refer to is by "Heathfield, Kirby et al" and makes
> no claim to be exclusively by RJH.
>
>> Yes, you are free to say whatever you like. Whether what you say
>> is true is something that people can decide for themselves on
>> the basis of the observable facts.
>
> I was observing the facts contained in the copy of the book
> currently sitting open on my desk... :-)

Don't you think that is rather silly for a valid clc argument? You
are much better off making random assertions, backed up with such
useful verbiage as 'liar'. Facts schmacts, here is a proper whine.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
>> You come in here anonymously,
>
> Actually this is incorrect too. Though its a fairly interesting
> comment from someone posting as "spinoza1111" which I'm pretty
> sure isn't your given name.

He has been generating large amounts of what has been termed
'Nilgewater' (his name is Nilges) for some years on
comp.programming. His normal posts are approximately 300 lines. I
suggest an immediate PLONK.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Mark McIntyre said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> jacob navia said:
>>
>>> With the same logic I can go around and say that
>>> you just put your name in a book written by others.
>
> .... except that he wrote the acknowledgements, chapters 1 and 2,

....and chapters 7, 8, 11 and 20 (altogether, well over a quarter of the
book, more than any other single author). I also picked (most of) the
team, decided on (most of) the contents of the book, and did (most of) the
chivvying up of other authors.

> the
> dedication and possibly other sections .
> And note also that the book you refer to is by "Heathfield, Kirby et al"
> and makes no claim to be exclusively by RJH.

Right.

>
>> Yes, you are free to say whatever you like. Whether what you say is true
>> is something that people can decide for themselves on the basis of the
>> observable facts.
>
> I was observing the facts contained in the copy of the book currently
> sitting open on my desk... :-)

Facts can be terribly confusing to some people. They are seen as attacks.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

spinoza1111 said:
> On May 9, 3:50 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> jacob navia said:
[...]
>> >>> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>>
>> >>>> <snip>
>>
>> >>>>> Navia? Didn't he implement C?
>> >>>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
>> >>>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE
>> >>>> himself.
>> >>> This is, I think, a lie at worst.
>>
<snip>
>>
>> > Your lies are obviously a "neutral description of the facts".
>>
>> Lies? Are you saying that you *did* write lcc-win32 from scratch? If so,
>> please make up your mind whether you did or whether you didn't, because
>> you are on record as saying that you acquired rights to the lcc compiler
>> and modified it, which is very different from writing lcc-win32 from
>> scratch. (See below.)
>>
> Modifying existing software is often more difficult than writing it
> anew.

It is very rare that I can find it in my heart to agree with you, but here
I unhesitatingly concur. It /is/ harder to modify someone else's code than
to write one's own, all else being equal. Nobody has said otherwise, as
far as I know.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mr Navia modified an existing compiler.
That statement is not intended either to attack or to support him. It
simply describes what happened. He has said as much himself. So why he
continues to deny it is beyond me.

> When you write it *ex nihilo* you can keep standards consistent
> whereas Jacob had to fully understand the existing code.

This may explain why lcc-win32 doesn't claim conformance to any standard.

> Jacob acquired the rights to the existing code

Precisely. He acquired the rights. He did not write the compiler from
scratch.

> and instead of sitting
> on his ass here since 2000 attacking better men, like you have, he
> made something very, very, useful.

There, there, Edward. Time for meds?

> There was not the slightest hint of plagiarism in his work,

Nobody has suggested there was. In fact, until *you* used the word
"plagiarism", it had not even been mentioned.

<snip>

> Navia, don't let him get away with this. He uses a quiet and "factual"
> tone when he is trying to destroy people's reputation and good name.

The 'quiet and "factual" tone' is inevitable when I'm quietly stating
facts. And I'm not trying to destroy Mr Navia's reputation, or yours, or
indeed anyone's.

> He does so because he's a lower middle class shop-boy and thug without
> a reputation or good name to protect, and he resents anybody who does
> anything...beyond getting his pals to write a book.

For ten years I've been trying to C programmers to become better C
programmers, not just via the book but also via Usenet and IRC. In those
ten years, I /have/, in fact, acquired a reputation - and one that is in
my view undeserved - as a C expert. Actually, I'm not a C expert and I
don't think I have ever claimed to be one - but yes, okay, I know C pretty
well. If I criticise the content of some of Jacob Navia's articles, it is
because they manifest a demonstrable misunderstanding of the C language, a
misunderstanding that can be verified by consultation of the document that
defines the language. (The particular section to consult does, of course,
vary from case to case.)

I am very glad that C compiler writers are around, and very glad to use
their compilers. I'm sure they do a much better job than I would. I'm not
a compiler writer (although of course I /have/ written compilers - i.e.
translators of code from one program language to another - and I've also
written an assembler and a debugger). But that isn't where my strengths
are - and I've certainly never written a C compiler.

But neither, it seems, has Jacob Navia. He has taken an /existing/
compiler, which appears to have been a C compiler originally, and turned
it into a non-C compiler - a compiler that doesn't claim conformance to
*any* ISO C Standard.


>> scratch. That doesn't take away anything that you've achieved, and
>> nothing of the kind has been suggested, and the only person who thinks
>> it has been is Mr Nilges, whose capacity for getting things wrong is
>> quite possibly
>
> Navia, this man, given his posture here as the Great Authority, has
> failed a simple test in C++. This man confuses && and || under stress.

That's a lie. I don't use the word "lie" often, but I'm using it now. When
you make this claim, you are lying, impure and unsimple.

> Don't believe a word he says.

Mr Navia already thinks I'm a liar, it seems. So do our resident trolls.
But the majority of readers of comp.lang.c are less easily persuaded. I
have ed hundreds, if not thousands, of people with C programming here
in comp.lang.c over the last ten years, and you'll need to work very hard
indeed to convince /them/ not to believe a word I say.

<snip>

> I've asked Richard to do as I've done several times. This is to simply
> leave these groups in a sabbatical.

The difference between us is that, when you take your occasional leaves of
absence, Usenet's S/N ratio jumps significantly.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

CBFalconer wrote:
> Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
>> I was observing the facts contained in the copy of the book
>> currently sitting open on my desk... :-)
>
> Don't you think that is rather silly for a valid clc argument? You
> are much better off making random assertions, backed up with such
> useful verbiage as 'liar'. Facts schmacts, here is a proper whine.
>

:-)

Sadly I suspect sarcasm is lost on nilges and on jacob.

--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

>
> > On May 9, 3:50 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >> jacob navia said:
> [...]
> >> >>> On May 9, 2:03 am, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> >> >>>> spinoza1111wrote, On 08/05/08 08:51:
>
> >> >>>> <snip>
>
> >> >>>>> Navia? Didn't he implement C?
> >> >>>> He took a C compiler written by someone else, extended it, added a
> >> >>>> debugger and for all I know might have implemented the entire IDE
> >> >>>> himself.
> >> >>> This is, I think, a lie at worst.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > Your lies are obviously a "neutral description of the facts".
>
> >> Lies? Are you saying that you *did* write lcc-win32 from scratch? If so,
> >> please make up your mind whether you did or whether you didn't, because
> >> you are on record as saying that you acquired rights to the lcc compiler
> >> and modified it, which is very different from writing lcc-win32 from
> >> scratch. (See below.)
>
> > Modifying existing software is often more difficult than writing it
> > anew.
>
> It is very rare that I can find it in my heart to agree with you, but here
> I unhesitatingly concur. It /is/ harder to modify someone else's code than
> to write one's own, all else being equal. Nobody has said otherwise, as
> far as I know.
>
> Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mr Navia modified an existing compiler.
> That statement is not intended either to attack or to support him. It
> simply describes what happened. He has said as much himself. So why he
> continues to deny it is beyond me.

Whoa. This makes no sense:

"He has said as much himself. So why he continues to deny it is beyond
me."

Navia can't "have said as much himself" AND "continually deny" the
same proposition.

My dear boy, I am aware that last January, you rather froze up while
swotting a sparknotes test over logical and and or as implemented in C+
+, but surely you know that in logic, "p || !p" is always true, and
what you assert above, "p && !p" is NEVER true.

I am sure that as chap says in Terry Gilliam's Brazil, chap who rather
reminds me of you, "computers are your fortay".

Which means that the error above is an indication that your psychotic
posting is causing an overwhelm.

I don't suggest people take meds, since I saw basic honesty, decency
and community work better for Nash. I suggest instead that you take a
hol. Go to Spain, go to Gibraltar, go to a match in what you chaps
call football. But for your own sake and lest you make yourself even
more of a complete buffoon, desist for a while.

You have plenty of non-psychotic personality traits I am sure. Since
"in spite of all temptations to belong to other nations, you are an
English man", I am certain you do not torment small animals, for the
English invented the notion of not pulling the ears off mice and cats.
Above, you intelligently and graciously concede my point as to the
difficulty of software maintenance.

Which is why I am concerned that your addiction may have gotten the
better of you, and this is why I counsel and intervene here.

>
> > When you write it *ex nihilo* you can keep standards consistent
> > whereas Jacob had to fully understand the existing code.
>
> This may explain why lcc-win32 doesn't claim conformance to any standard.

Yeah, and that's why it's u