Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!mimsy!aplcen!quequeg!amen
From: amen@quequeg.UUCP (Bob Amen)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Standard C Programming - wot a dumb idea.
Message-ID: <247@quequeg.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Aug-87 08:35:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: quequeg.247
Posted: Mon Aug 24 08:35:42 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Aug-87 06:09:58 EDT
References: <26297@sun.uucp>
Organization: Chesapeake Bay Institute, Physical Oceanography, Shady Side, MD 20764
Lines: 62

in article <26297@sun.uucp>, guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) says:
> 
>> The BBS group I talk to are mainly kids or people that are starting with
>> 'C' and the questions I get are mainly with externs, as in "Where is that
>> referenced".  Sorry to sit and burn but as a programmer I understand the use of
>> various abilities that 'C' offers but I mearly wanted to defend the
>> 'little user' as well.
> 
> So?  These programs aren't posted so that people can use them to learn C; they
> are posted so that they can be compiled and run.  Again, how many computer
> users would necessarily be able to understand *all* the programs they use?
>...
> 
> By saying that this new realm of users "must" be supported, you are either
> making a moral claim or stating a fact backed up by law or some other form of
> authority.
> ...
> 
>> If one doesn't like the idea of supporting other 'lesser educated' users,
>> I'm sure that there are a lot of other newsgroups that one can subscribe
>> to or unsubscribe from.
> 
> Fine.  If *you* want a newsgroup requiring C code to be written to the lowest
> common denominator, so that the code in it can be understood by the least
> sophisticated users and the least sophisticated systems, go ahead and set it
> up.  Don't try and require that an existing community adhere to these arbitrary
> standards, though; it is not your right to say that that community should move
> to "other newsgroups".

	As a less sophisticated user than Guy I would like to respond in
support of what he says.  I am not afraid to look at a program that doesn't
compile and try to make it work.  In fact I enjoy it and have learned much
from doing just that.  I've learned alot about C and found new techniques
that I otherwise would not have learned.   I've also learned alot about
how Un*x works and have been able to make many programs work on our system
(SYSV with BSD4.2 enhancements) and have (and will continue to) mail the
fixes to the original authors so that they can add another machine to the
list of "supported" machines.  It was my understanding that this is how
Usenet is supposed to work.  I feel sorry for those that are too timid to
tackle a posted program that they might not understand.  They will be slow
to learn and always behind the times.

(I've been programming for about 10 years (in school, mostly and all
scientific programming) but have only been using C for a year and a half.
I have been administering our systems (2) for two years with no prior
sysadmin or Un*x experience...I'm really a neophyte!) 

	I really don't understand why some people are so quick to criticise
those that have freely given of their time and expertise by posting things
that they have found useful.  After all they didn't say that one MUST
compile and make their stuff work.  They just thought "you" might find it
useful too.  If "you" don't like it then write the program yourself!  Many
have put an incredible amount of time and effort into making their programs
as portable as possible (given that they are usually working on one flavor
of machine) (Dave Taylor is a prime example here!).  Those that haven't
usually say that "This has been tested on XYZ but may work on ZZX as well.

	Right on Guy and Dave (from a small corner of the net)!

-- 
	Bob Amen (amen@quequeg.UUCP)
	Chesapeake Bay Institute/Johns Hopkins University (+1 301 338-6329)