Discussion:
[ping] Peter Moylan
(too old to reply)
Anton Shepelev
2018-05-09 11:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This is to notify Peter Moylan that his 1992 article
titled "The Case Against C" has prompted a long dis-
cussion on comp.lang.c .

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Arindam Banerjee
2018-05-09 11:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:06:53 PM UTC+10, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> This is to notify Peter Moylan that his 1992 article
> titled "The Case Against C" has prompted a long dis-
> cussion on comp.lang.c .
>
> --
> () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
> /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

wow.
Peter Moylan
2018-05-10 04:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/05/18 21:06, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> This is to notify Peter Moylan that his 1992 article
> titled "The Case Against C" has prompted a long dis-
> cussion on comp.lang.c .

Thanks. I've just subscribed to comp.lang.c, so I'll take a look soon.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Moylan
2018-05-10 06:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/05/18 14:43, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 09/05/18 21:06, Anton Shepelev wrote:

>> This is to notify Peter Moylan that his 1992 article
>> titled "The Case Against C" has prompted a long dis-
>> cussion on comp.lang.c .
>
> Thanks. I've just subscribed to comp.lang.c, so I'll take a look soon.

Well, that was an experience. I've probably only read half the thread,
but already I'm exhausted.

It was interesting to see how much this has in common with AUE discussions:

1. The thread was initiated by a self-declared troll -- although it
was hard to tell whether he was a genuine troll -- but was
quickly joined by people who seem to be regulars in the group.

2. Thread drift appeared in a very short time, and it was not at all
clear in advance which subthreads would be worth reading.

3. A fairly high density of ad hominem arguments.

4. A surprisingly large number of participants who, in hindsight,
probably belong in everyone's killfile.

5. Not many comments relevant to the original topic.

Of more interest to me is the question of how someone picked up
something I wrote over 25 years ago. Since that's seriously off-topic,
I'll save it for a separate post.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-05-10 08:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-05-10 06:25:06 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 10/05/18 14:43, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 09/05/18 21:06, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
>>> This is to notify Peter Moylan that his 1992 article
>>> titled "The Case Against C" has prompted a long dis-
>>> cussion on comp.lang.c .
>>
>> Thanks. I've just subscribed to comp.lang.c, so I'll take a look soon.
>
> Well, that was an experience. I've probably only read half the thread,
> but already I'm exhausted.

Exactly what I thought, and I only read about six or seven posts before
deciding that there was nothing interesting there.
>
> It was interesting to see how much this has in common with AUE discussions:
>
> 1. The thread was initiated by a self-declared troll -- although it
> was hard to tell whether he was a genuine troll -- but was
> quickly joined by people who seem to be regulars in the group.
>
> 2. Thread drift appeared in a very short time, and it was not at all
> clear in advance which subthreads would be worth reading.
>
> 3. A fairly high density of ad hominem arguments.
>
> 4. A surprisingly large number of participants who, in hindsight,
> probably belong in everyone's killfile.
>
> 5. Not many comments relevant to the original topic.
>
> Of more interest to me is the question of how someone picked up
> something I wrote over 25 years ago. Since that's seriously off-topic,
> I'll save it for a separate post.


--
athel
David Kleinecke
2018-05-10 16:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 1:20:57 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-05-10 06:25:06 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> > On 10/05/18 14:43, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 09/05/18 21:06, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> >
> >>> This is to notify Peter Moylan that his 1992 article
> >>> titled "The Case Against C" has prompted a long dis-
> >>> cussion on comp.lang.c .
> >>
> >> Thanks. I've just subscribed to comp.lang.c, so I'll take a look soon.
> >
> > Well, that was an experience. I've probably only read half the thread,
> > but already I'm exhausted.
>
> Exactly what I thought, and I only read about six or seven posts before
> deciding that there was nothing interesting there.
> >
> > It was interesting to see how much this has in common with AUE discussions:
> >
> > 1. The thread was initiated by a self-declared troll -- although it
> > was hard to tell whether he was a genuine troll -- but was
> > quickly joined by people who seem to be regulars in the group.
> >
> > 2. Thread drift appeared in a very short time, and it was not at all
> > clear in advance which subthreads would be worth reading.
> >
> > 3. A fairly high density of ad hominem arguments.
> >
> > 4. A surprisingly large number of participants who, in hindsight,
> > probably belong in everyone's killfile.
> >
> > 5. Not many comments relevant to the original topic.
> >
> > Of more interest to me is the question of how someone picked up
> > something I wrote over 25 years ago. Since that's seriously off-topic,
> > I'll save it for a separate post.

The real heart of comp.lang.c is interpretation of the
Standards (there are three 1989, 1999, 2011) for C. In
this respect it is analogous to AUE's interpretation of
English grammar. But, like AUE, it often goes off the
tracks.
Richard Tobin
2018-05-10 16:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ffc25659-7875-4322-bb33-***@googlegroups.com>,
David Kleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>The real heart of comp.lang.c is interpretation of the
>Standards (there are three 1989, 1999, 2011) for C. In
>this respect it is analogous to AUE's interpretation of
>English grammar.

I would say that in that respect it is quite the opposite: there is no
standard for English whose every clause can be analysed for
subtleties. AUE is more like CLC before ANSI C - numerous slightly
incompatible implementations, with perhaps British English filling the
historical role of K&R C.

-- Richard
David Kleinecke
2018-05-10 16:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <ffc25659-7875-4322-bb33-***@googlegroups.com>,
> David Kleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The real heart of comp.lang.c is interpretation of the
> >Standards (there are three 1989, 1999, 2011) for C. In
> >this respect it is analogous to AUE's interpretation of
> >English grammar.
>
> I would say that in that respect it is quite the opposite: there is no
> standard for English whose every clause can be analysed for
> subtleties. AUE is more like CLC before ANSI C - numerous slightly
> incompatible implementations, with perhaps British English filling the
> historical role of K&R C.

Cute - those two feel very alike to me. The lawyerly nuances
of one balance the idiolectic diversity of the other.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on comp.c before 1989 (if it
even existed then).
Peter Moylan
2018-05-15 10:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/05/18 21:06, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> This is to notify Peter Moylan that his 1992 article titled "The
> Case Against C" has prompted a long discussion on comp.lang.c .

I was in some doubt over whether to post the following comments, because
they are wildly off-topic for AUE. They are on the subject of how an old
scholarly article can suddenly reappear. If that bores you, skip to the
next thread immediately. I suspect, however, that some here will find
the topic of interest.

The immediate question is, of course, why a report I wrote 26 years ago,
and which caused only a minor splash at the time, would suddenly attract
attention again. Some research papers can do that, if the topic was not
fashionable at the time but is now seen as important, but the article in
question is not a research paper. It's more of an opinion piece.

I think I know the answer. Some time in the last few years I decided to
make my past research publications available on ResearchGate, which is a
web site that aids in sharing publications. What is happening, I think,
is that younger researchers who search for something of mine then ask
themselves "what else has he written?". They're tracking down things
this way that my generation had to spend tedious hours in a library to
find. Finally, the internet is giving researchers a genuine benefit,
something to counterbalance all the rubbish that one finds on the net.

ResearchGate has a competitor called Academica, which is run by Google.
Now and then I get messages from them saying that someone had searched
with Google for a paper of mine. If I follow the link, there's a demand
for money, so I don't take it any further. I suspect that this started
out as a trial of Google Dianetics ... sorry, I mean Analytics, a
technology that appears to have turned out to be useless, but now it
appears to have turned into a way to get money from insecure
early-career researchers. I'm probably going to have to train my mail
program to recognise mail from Google as spam.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Loading...