Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu!kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob
From: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Where to ask (was Re: turbo C memory question)
Message-ID: <3474@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 89 23:19:59 GMT
References: <20401@mimsy.umd.edu> <11098@dasys1.UUCP> <1989Nov8.111720.15834@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <73774@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <165@xyzzy.UUCP>
Sender: news@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Organization: Ohio State Univ, College of Engineering
Lines: 57

In article <165@xyzzy.UUCP> goudreau@rtp48.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
>In article <73774@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Loyde W Hales
 <lwh@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: 
>>I don't think he's saying that [*.ibm.pc are overfilled with garbage so we 
  need to siphon some of it over to here] at all.  I think he's saying that
  *.ibm.pc are 
>>broad-set newsgroups, covering every aspect of the machines.  This isn't
>>efficient for questions dealing with C.
>
>Hmmm.  By that logic, the following diametrically opposed statement is
>equally reasonable:
>
>	"I think he's saying that comp.lang.* are broad-set newsgroups,
>	covering every aspect of the languages.  This isn't efficient for
>	questions dealing with IBM PCs."
>
>Perhaps what we really need to do is to split the comp.lang.c newsgroup
>into comp.lang.c.definition and comp.lang.c.implementations :-).

Perhaps what we really need to do is to stand back and _think_ for a moment.
Why is the news split up in groups?  So as to cause religious wars?  Generate
more posts?  Or, perhaps, to help us digest the stuff?

Ah, then it is a heuristic.  Not a sacred law, but a heuristic.  Like any
heuristic worth its salt, news group separation needs to applied
intelligently, or things get silly.

If somebody wants to start a discussion about Budhism, this is clearly not
the place.  If somebody wants to know whether the piece of code {....} is
portable, it is.  In between, things get more vague.  The reason?  Humans are
notoriously bad at categorizing, they work with fuzzy sets rather than the
normal ones.  So there is a mismatch between us and the newsgroup structure.
So it won't quite work perfectly; what my fuzzy membership evaluator says is
still acceptable, yours denounces as heresy, and war follows soon after.

Please, I already have to work with _machines_ that insist on splitting all
hairs in sight, if the _humans_ are going to join in, I think I'm going to
scream, look for a nice tall building and try out Arthur Dent's theory on
flight :-)

Also, consider this: if we hadn't started this dicussion, think of all the fun
we could have had in that bandwidth by pointing at IBM segment registers and
snickering :-) In other words, considering that the machine-specific posts do
not by any reasonable strecth of any healthy imagination constitute a flood
(or even wet feet :-), isn't the cure causing more problems than the supposed
disease?  (And don't tell me it _shouldn't_ have.  I don't give a hoot about
shoulds.  I have seen several people trying to start this campaign several
times now, always with the same result: we have a flame war for a while, and
then things go back to the old ways.  It may not be pretty, but them's the
facts)

SR
"Lessee, watercooled underwear, check.  Insulating overwear, check.
Flame-resistant coveral, mask and hood, check.  Independent airsupply, check.
Shields up, check.  Deflector screens on, check.  /dev/flame_drain mounted,
check.  Dummy activated, check.  Comfy hiding place prepared, check.  OK, I
think I can send this now."