brucee@alice.UUCP (Bruce Ellis) (05/31/84)
> According to some papers on the "C++" language done at Bell (which they're > now just calling "C" and are calling what those of us in the real world > know as "C" "old C"), you can: You seem to know a lot about what's going on here at Bell, Guy. Actually you are as ignorant as the other people who submit twenty news items a day.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/01/84)
> > According to some papers on the "C++" language done at Bell (which they're > > now just calling "C" and are calling what those of us in the real world > > know as "C" "old C"), you can: > You seem to know a lot about what's going on here at Bell, Guy. > Actually you are as ignorant as the other people who submit > twenty news items a day. Oh, piss off. I'm only quoting what I read in the technical report which was, in case you didn't know it, put out by AT&T Bell Laboratories. If you want to argue with the author of the CSTR (I won't try and spell it because 1) I don't have the papers at hand and 2) your little snide comment makes it not worth the effort) go right ahead. He states rather explicitly there that C++ is also being called C and that what was C is being called "old C". I only know what I read in the papers. When the person who currently has the papers returns from the business trip they're on, I'll be more than glad to cite the exact statement, CSTR and page number and everything. Sort of makes you look a little foolish, doesn't it? Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
brucee@alice.UUCP (Bruce Ellis) (06/01/84)
>>> According to some papers on the "C++" language done at Bell (which they're >>> now just calling "C" and are calling what those of us in the real world >>> know as "C" "old C"), you can: >> >> You seem to know a lot about what's going on here at Bell, Guy. >> Actually you are as ignorant as the other people who submit >> twenty news items a day. > > Oh, piss off. I'm only quoting what I read in the technical report which > was, in case you didn't know it, put out by AT&T Bell Laboratories. If you > want to argue with the author of the CSTR (I won't try and spell it because > 1) I don't have the papers at hand and 2) your little snide comment makes it > not worth the effort) go right ahead. He states rather explicitly there > that C++ is also being called C and that what was C is being called "old C". > I only know what I read in the papers. When the person who currently has > the papers returns from the business trip they're on, I'll be more than glad > to cite the exact statement, CSTR and page number and everything. > > Sort of makes you look a little foolish, doesn't it? I know the paper, I know the author. He calls them C and old-C respectively. No-one else in 1127 does. You look a little foolish yourself, Guy. First you believed what you read in the papers then you got real mad when someone pointed out your error. Re-flames by mail please. Some people may not like your next obscenity.
donn@sdchema.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (06/01/84)
From: brucee@alice.UUCP > According to some papers on the "C++" language done at Bell > (which they're now just calling "C" and are calling what > those of us in the real world know as "C" "old C"), you > can: You seem to know a lot about what's going on here at Bell, Guy. Actually you are as ignorant as the other people who submit twenty news items a day. Actually both of these statements display ignorance: it's not BELL, it's AT&T BELL LABORATORIES. :-> I think brucee@alice's remark is completely uncalled for (at least in net.lang.c; notice that I'm broadening the distribution). This has to be the most foolish statement I have seen in a technical newsgroup in, well, months. If Guy is wrong, say why! Or at least state that details are under discussion and that staffers are not permitted to disclose anything. If Guy is a gadfly, so much the better for the net -- gadflies often stimulate useful comment and debate (but Guy has clearly failed in that here, after getting an answer like brucee's). Although I have not found Guy to be omniscient, he is probably better-informed than most readers of the net, and he is certainly constructive (which is more than I can say for brucee). Since some obnoxiously ad-hominem comment is probably required here to justify involving the net.flame readership, let me say this: Let's hope that brucee is not involved in C development efforts, because his contempt for humanity is a virtual guarantee that none of his software will be usable. How did you like that, sports fans? Donn Seeley UCSD Chemistry Dept. ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn PS If someone really DOES have something constructive to say about new developments in C, PLEASE say it. Otherwise this whole discussion should promptly be retired to net.flame.
opus@drutx.UUCP (06/01/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dcdwest.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 4/2/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP Message-ID: <419@drutx.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Jun-84 14:31:30 PDT Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 14 Is all this nastiness really necessary? Guy Harris quite reasonably paraphrased what he read in a CSTR; he also prefaced his comments with "According to some papers on the C++ language done at Bell...." If he is in error, it is quite sufficient to correct the mistaken impression politely. For alice!brucee to call Guy "as ignorant as the other people who submit twenty news items a day" is not only snide, uncalled for and a poor reflection on alice!brucee; it's also a little peculiar. Why is he so mad at the world? Enough. How about discussing C++ itself? (At this point, I'm even getting nostalgic for a good "return(expr)" vs. "return expr" discussion :-). Jim Shankland ..!ihnp4!druxy!opus
gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/01/84)
This flaming contest would have been avoided if brucee would've been informative the first time around, rather than just knocking someone who is TRYING to share what little is known about the evolution of C inside of AT&TBL. Many of us care quite a bit about what happens to C in the next several years; how about an informative dialogue about the current and near-term changes in the C language, folks?
gwyn@brl-vgr.UUCP (06/01/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA Message-ID: <2780@brl-vgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 1-Jun-84 14:39:24 EDT Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 15:49:39 EDT and C++ Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 6 This flaming contest would have been avoided if brucee would've been informative the first time around, rather than just knocking someone who is TRYING to share what little is known about the evolution of C inside of AT&TBL. Many of us care quite a bit about what happens to C in the next several years; how about an informative dialogue about the current and near-term changes in the C language, folks?
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (06/02/84)
From Bruce Ellis: > You look a little foolish yourself, Guy. Not really. If the TR was inaccurate, then it was the author's fault, no Guy's. > First you believed what you read in the papers then you got real > mad when someone pointed out your error. But you didn't correct one single bit of misinformation, you just made a pointless, personal attack. > Re-flames by mail please. Some people may not like your next > obscenity. Actually, I really enjoyed it when Guy told you to "piss off." Why don't you? Guy has contributed a *hell* of a lot more to this net than you, fellow. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Christopher) (06/02/84)
> I know the paper, I know the author. He calls them C and old-C > respectively. No-one else in 1127 does. You look a little foolish > yourself, Guy. First you believed what you read in the papers > then you got real mad when someone pointed out your error. > Re-flames by mail please. Some people may not like your next obscenity. So you people are so disorganized that you can't even agree upon what you call your languages, and on top of that consider it a terrible insult when somebody else believes what one of you says the rest call it? Furthermore, I don't think that "pointed out your error" is the best way to describe your article. Move over Rich Rosen... Wayne
brucee@alice.UUCP (Bruce Ellis) (06/03/84)
OK then, I give in. I was told that netnews was the new 'rogue', the new game to play while you are waiting for a make. Apparently not. I was impressed, though, by the wide range of mail I received on my little conribution, ranging from very blue insults to letters of praise. Back to work lads, have we decided about return (expr) yet?
jim@ism780.UUCP (06/05/84)
#R:rlgvax:-197300:ism780:12500009:000:289 ism780!jim Jun 3 22:55:00 1984 Guy Harris has repeatedly demonstrated that he is one of the best informed, most constructive, people on the net; he saved many people a lot of headaches and a lot of time. It seems pretty clear to me who appears the fool in this discussion. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)
berry@zinfandel.UUCP (06/07/84)
#R:rlgvax:-197300:zinfandel:14600020:000:95 zinfandel!berry Jun 6 12:46:00 1984 isn't C++ == D?? Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900
andrew@hwcs.UUCP (Andrew Stewart) (06/13/84)
>> According to some papers on the "C++" language done at Bell (which they're >> now just calling "C" and are calling what those of us in the real world >> know as "C" "old C"), you can: > >You seem to know a lot about what's going on here at Bell, Guy. >Actually you are as ignorant as the other people who submit >twenty news items a day. I *WISH* people would indulge in personal abuse by mail, *NOT* by news. With all due respect, news was not designed for a world-wide slanging match.