Re: LCC Compiler Bug.

> To be fair, Jacob seems more enthusiastic than anyone else on clc
> about trying to evolve C into a better language. Whereas you seem to
> be obsessed purely with finding faults in his compiler, which does
> seem a little sad itself.

exactly. Jacob does lack a "diplomatic communication skill". but most of
the times, his opinions are seems honest. they may go against popular "show offs".

> "tea caddy", who has posted under several different tea-related
> pseudonyms, is a troll with an irrational vendetta aginst jacob
> (and an apparent inability to understand the meaning of ":-)").
> I suggest ignoring him.
>
i
even if tea caddy turns out to be a troll, its true jacob sometimes pushes peoples button. remember the attempt to gain support for his common data structure manipulation library to make it a ISO standard?

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:36:47 PM UTC+6, Noob wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> > "tea caddy", who has posted under several different tea-related
> > pseudonyms, is a troll with an irrational vendetta against jacob
>
> Disagree on "irrational". Motives to despise Navia are many.

yep

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:10:24 PM UTC+6, Quentin Pope wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:31:14 +0000, tea caddy wrote:
> > jacob navia writes:
> >> Reading this it looks like you are right. If you buy a maintenance
> >> contract I will correct it for you :-)
> >
> > why is it always about money with you jacob? don't you have any pride in
> > your work? it's sad to see someone so obsessed with $$$.
>
> You may be trolling, but these things can make a difference when it comes
> to customer loyalty.
>
> Back in the early 90s - the days of Visual C 7.0, before Visual C++
> appeared - I remember sending Microsoft a report about a fairly obscure
> corner-case bug in the first release of MFC. I got back a very polite
> letter (we only had email on our internal company LAN in those days, no
> Internet!) thanking me for my feedback, saying how committed they were to
> improving their software, and promising a fix in the next version.
>
> Sure enough, it took 18 months or so till the new version came out
> (things moved more slowly in those days), but the bug was fixed.
>
> I don't know if they would be as responsive today, but that positive
> experience left me well-disposed to Microsoft and their tool chain for
> many years to come.
>
> // QP

good point. still not good enough for me to risk a 600mb express edition download. bandwidth is still costly.

Le 17/04/12 14:15, ArifulHossain tuhin a écrit :
>> "tea caddy", who has posted under several different tea-related
>> pseudonyms, is a troll with an irrational vendetta aginst jacob
>> (and an apparent inability to understand the meaning of ":-)").
>> I suggest ignoring him.
>>
> i
> even if tea caddy turns out to be a troll, its true jacob sometimes pushes peoples button.

remember the attempt to gain support for his common data structure
manipulation library to make it a ISO standard?

The library has been approved by the French ANSI committee and I will
present it to the standards committee shortly.

You haven't seen anything yet.

On Apr 17, 1:42*pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> The library has been approved by the French ANSI committee

Why would ANSI (the American standards body) have a French committee
on anything? Do you mean AFNOR, or some other body?

>
> The library has been approved by the French ANSI committee and I will
> present it to the standards committee shortly.
>
> You haven't seen anything yet.


I'm not against to standardize ccl. it seems a pretty nifty piece of tool and all of us are cursed to write their own list module to some aspect. My observation is not related to "should ccl become a ISO standard", but related to "communication process adopted in clc to promote ccl".

Congrats on the success of getting accepted by french committee. I hope it will become a ISOc13. i'm a gcc user. so it will benefit me. VS users are still waiting for c99. Thats the issue should be taken seriously.A big vendor of compilers/tools are just ignoring standard with a large user base. things like ccl will never attract msft. they will instruct you to mix c and c++ to do these kinds of job.

I personally studying ccl for using it in one of my projects. so i guess you will get some angry bug reports in nearby future from me

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:53:46 PM UTC+6, gwowen wrote:
> Why would ANSI (the American standards body) have a French committee
> on anything? Do you mean AFNOR, or some other body?

ha ha, i'm sure he meant AFNOR...

In article <19670072.792.1334668985992.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbep2>,
aft <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:53:46 PM UTC+6, gwowen wrote:
>> Why would ANSI (the American standards body) have a French committee
>> on anything? Do you mean AFNOR, or some other body?
>
>ha ha, i'm sure he meant AFNOR...

You guys are such tools.

If Jacob had said "The French CIA" - everybody (with half a brain and a
willing to not be a tool) would understand what he meant. It's the same
here.

Think of it as a courtesy - an attempt to help Americans (*) understand the
concept.

(*) Americans, who are legendary for their inability to see or understand
anything outside their borders.

--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...

James Kuyper wrote:

> As little respect as I have for jacob, I don't see how his
> suggestions constitute "push[ing] peoples button".

Navia rarely misses an opportunity to promote his wares
(which makes him a spammer), or to disparage gcc (which
makes him a spiteful kook).

On 04/17/2012 11:47 AM, Noob wrote:
> James Kuyper wrote:
>> As little respect as I have for jacob, I don't see how his
>> suggestions constitute "push[ing] peoples button".
>
> Navia rarely misses an opportunity to promote his wares
> (which makes him a spammer),

Agreed.

> .. or to disparage gcc (which makes him a spiteful kook).

He has to be a kook to disagree with the way gcc does things? Since when
did gcc inherit Papal infallibility? If he didn't disagree with how gcc
does things, there's be no reason for him to create a compiler that
competes with it.

I don't see either of those as "push[ing] peoples button".